[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for co

From: Ivan Zaigralin
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:25:44 -0700
User-agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.4.118-gnu; KDE/4.14.32; x86_64; ; )

I agree: if a distro can't fix a freedom bug for an extended period of time, 
we should assume utter incompetence or bad faith, and there should be a path 
to revoke/reset the certification. To keep things fair, some of that policy 
should be written down. At the same time, not all freedom bugs are the same 
severity, and not all of them are easy to fix, so it would probably pay to 
remain flexible about time frames.

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 16:08:47 bill-auger wrote:
> On 03/22/2018 03:30 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> > But we don't have to assume that
> > is needed just because a lot of time has passed.
> i think that is a valid concern though - to allow for some "on-hold"
> phase and for when it becomes clear that the distro maintainers are
> expressing no interest or making significant  progress towards
> addressing issues - i propose this as an addendum to the protocol
> description if this sounds reasonable to everyone:
> ----------------------------------
> * If at any time, it becomes clear that no significant progress is being
> made toward addressing documented criteria discrepancies or
> deficiencies, the application manager or the FSF licensing team may move
> the distro's entry to the list under the 'Distros that are defunct or do
> not comply with the GNU FSDG' heading; where they may sit indefinitely.
> This could be considered as an some reasonably brief amount of time
> (perhaps to assign a new application manager or grace period for the
> distro maintainers to respond); but unless there is timely objection or
> discussion by the distro maintainers, this may conclude the review
> process and the application manager may be relieved of it's over-sight.
> After the application manager steps down, the distro would need to
> re-apply to the GNU webmasters to re-start the process. The state of the
> checklist page and notes should be retained in order to inform future
> reviewers or those who may fork or otherwise assume stewardship of the
> distro.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]