Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Ututo status

[Ineiev]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Joshua Gay wrote:
> >>> Perhaps we should consider a distro inactive if it takes more than a month
> >>> to contact its developers, shouldn't we?
>
> I don't think we should have a single rule. These are all good and
> useful projects run by people in our community. The FSF licensing team
> can take over doing this leg work for now, although if anybody on here
> has useful info you can feel free to share that with us at
> address@hidden

Personally, I'd share Ali's doubts about this project being really
useful, these days.

> Basically I think the gameplan is that we should find out what is
> happening and why and if it makes sense we should find out if there is
> something we can do to help (e.g., publish a post saying that the
> project is looking for a new maintainer). This sort of thing happens
> very rarely so it isn't like we need to worry about spending a few extra
> minutes here and there trying to connect with people.

I see. what have we done in this particular case of Ututo? what are we
going to do?

> Depending on what happens, in some cases it might make sense to simply
> note something on the free distros page and in other cases it might make
> sense to remove it. If we remove it, it might also make sense to publish
> a blog post. But, before we publish a blog post we should **make sure**
> we know what we are writing about.

So we are to find out whether Ututo is inactive, and then
to figure out what we prefer: removing Ututo from the list,
or dropping the requirement of being maintained from the FSDG.
I don't believe keeping both is a reasonable option.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature