Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

[Donald Robertson]

On 02/28/2018 09:49 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> On 02/28/2018 12:08 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
>> It would be good to have your own
>> workflow. Steps, one by one on what is to be
>> done.
>>
>> Not just a checklist for free system
>> distributions, but rather a checklist for the
>> whole process.
> 
> 
> the only thing that the announcement does mention regarding documenting
> the process was regarding the work-flow stages of the process itself;
> not anything was mentioned about a checklist of specific criteria - i
> would very much like to invert that proposal however
> 
> the "one-by-one procedure steps" of "what is to be done" are only and
> entirely the evaluation of individual criteria - these criteria have no
> inherent order - they are appropriately representable by a checklist -
> and a criteria embodies all of the important information that anyone
> would care to know - that is what should be documented
> 
> there is little to document specifically about the progress through any
> meaningful stages - there are only three such over-all work-flow stages
> above the details of the criteria evaluation:
> 
> * stage 1) a brief initial shallow evaluation done by GNU web-masters
> 
> * stage 2) the presumably longest, if not exhaustive, community
> evaluation where the meaningful criteria checklist is filled
> 
> * stage 3) the final approval phase by the FSF where there would be
> presumably very little remaining to do
> 
> so a work-flow checklist, as something distinct from a criteria
> checklist, would only be three items long - there would probably be only
> a trivial amount of time spent in the first and last phases - and the
> proposed work-flow checklist itself would not even be created until
> moving out of stage one into stage two - so the information that a
> work-flow checklist would convey could be as accurately derived from the
> criteria checklist alone, as such:
> 
> * stage 1) the criteria checklist has not yet been created
> * stage 2) none or some criteria items have been evaluated
> * stage 3) all criteria items have been evaluated
> 
> the only meaningful semantics of stage 1 is: "the GNU web-masters
> received a request for review and will decide *whether or not* to begin
> the process" - as soon as that is acted upon, either stage 2 would begin
> immediately or i assume the sender would get some private reply in a
> timely manner - in stage 1, there is really nothing to document yet
> 
> the only meaningful semantics of stage 3 is: "the checklist is complete
> and pending final approval by the FSF" - after that happens, either the
> distro will appear on the endorsed distros web page or perhaps a problem
> was found and the distro is sent back to stage 2
> 
> so the initial and final stages are each singular states and should
> consume only the smallest proportion of the overall time; and so are the
> least interesting to anyone - but that is so far the only thing that is
> to be documented
> 
> clearly, stage 2 is the only one worth documenting - and as i said, it's
> semantics is only and entirely the evaluation of individual criteria
> checklist items - and nothing of this phase is decided to be documented
> other than in the form of this mailing list - but no one in posterity
> would want to comb over the mailing list archives to root out these
> details - an explicit checklist would be vastly more helpful to anyone
> interested - and i underline, especially in cases where the distro takes
> a long time to achieve 100% criteria conformance - even if 100% criteria
> conformance is never achieved, the existing checklist would still be a
> valuable resource to anyone who cares to takes the distro to the next
> step in the future or liberate their own copy of it
> 
> it seems very simple to me - do people agree?
> 

I'm definitely in agreement. Having each item of the criteria on a
checklist that is publicly documented I think would be a great step
towards making the system more transparent. I think it will also provide
a great resource for people who are thinking about endorsement to be
able to see which items tricked up other projects so they can start
thinking about them early.
-- 
Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Licensing & Compliance Manager
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone +1-617-542-5942
Fax +1-617-542-2652 ex. 56

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature