Re: Feedback on our evaluation criteria

[Fischers Fritz]

I think it is enough if we would change a few words. I think this
addresses the problems I relayed without creating the troubles that
others have mentioned. 

Indicate the web focus by changing the first sentence from

> We developed these criteria to judge services for hosting parts of the
> GNU operating system, but we recommend them to everyone that wants to
> use a service for publicly hosting free source code (and optionally
> executable programs too). 

to

> We developed these criteria to judge web services for hosting parts of the
> GNU operating system, but we recommend them to everyone that wants to
> use a web service for publicly hosting free source code (and optionally
> executable programs too). 

Indicate that grade C doesn't have any ethics we consider specific
to GNU packages by changing the name of grade C from

> C - Acceptable hosting for a GNU package

to

> C - Acceptable

And instead, mention the relevance to GNU at the beginning of the
criteria, like this.

> Code-hosting sites are graded from F to A+. GNU packages should only
> use code-hosting sites with at grade of C or better.

Judging from discussion in April, I gather the webpage source code
is hosted in a CVS repository. If someone points me to it, I could
format the above proposal as a patch.