Re: A+ 0

[wolftune]

I don't like the phrase "operate on projects", I don't think that is the key 
point. I think the key point is to access the projects at all. It's one thing if someone 
can see public stuff (see code history, issue tickets, download the source code etc) and 
another for someone to submit anything (create an issue ticket or send in a code patch or 
similar).

Also, I still think "authentication" seems not specific enough. Is it 
"authentication" when GitLab.com does some cloudflare check that blocks the entire site 
from loading upon failure?

Maybe something like this: "Access to any public parts of projects is not limited by 
any form of authentication of visitors." ?

On 2023-12-20 8:25 p.m., "Svetlana Tkachenko" <svetlana@members.fsf.org> wrote:
> Hi Richard
>
> > I agree with the point, but I think those words don't make it totally
> > clear.  I think these would be clearer.
> >
> >     Does not impose any authentication requirements for visitors to operate
> >     on projects, other than what the managers of each project have chosen.
> >
> > WDYT>
>
> Maybe this:
>
> Does not impose any authentication requirements for visitors to operate
> on projects, other than the requirements set by the managers of
> each project; provides a facility to host a project in which all such
> requirements are absent, allowing full public access.