Re: Hello?

[Bert Van de Poel]

I presume you mean https://about.gitlab.com/ linked on the login page in 
the footer? While it does mention commercial offerings quite 
prominently, when you ask for the "FREE" option, self-hosted is just as 
prominent as SaaS in my opinion. Beyond that, this committe hasn't been 
able to pass evaluation of any foundry instances for years according to 
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html (but tried 
several times, I remember participating in discussions). While I agree 
we should at some point talk about software, we should really first 
focus on getting the foundries listed on that page updated, and getting 
new relevant foundries like sr.ht and notabug.org listed.

I would also like to stress that everyone (me included) seems to have 
developed a tendency of discussing things in these threads that go way 
beyond the email subject that was set. This I think makes it hard for 
some to follow the information being discussed, as well as to search 
through the archives in the future to find out why we decided something 
and what arguments we considered. I would therefore suggest we all make 
an extra effort to not discuss one foundry or piece of software in the 
thread about another, and to start new threads when necessary. Of 
course, if others here prefer the fluent but chaotic situation we're 
currently in, then I'm also fine following the majority (if there is 
one, which I doubt).

On 7/04/2021 11:24, Svetlana Tkachenko wrote:
> > It's been argued several times within this mailing list that the
> > distinction should be made between GitLab as software (which people can
> > self-host with several different settings) and GitLab.com as a service.
> Should it be noted that GitLab as software links to the GitLab.com
> web site in its footer? I think this might reduce a score somewhere,
> as this advertises the "services" that GitLab.com offers.