Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Rough Draft of Announcement (Task 2)

[Mike Gerwitz]

Looks great!  There's a lot of text below, but there's really not much
that I suggest changing.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 19:14:22 +0100, Andrew Ferguson wrote:
> Released in 2015, the criteria grades
                    ^these criteria grade

(And any other place that it makes sense; criteria is plural.)

> Code hosting repositories that have passed the criteria have shown a
> satisfactory level of commitment to user rights, enabling them to be
> considered acceptable for hosting a GNU package.

Maybe shorten to: "[...] shown a commitment to user rights and are
considered acceptable for hosting a GNU project".

Maybe replace "rights" with "freedoms"?

> Repositories that have demonstrated a higher level of commitment will
> gain a higher grade, at first becoming acceptable to endorse to others
> and then becoming “excellent”.

Maybe a brief mention of what "excellent" means; this kinda leaves them
hanging.

> and should be rejected by the community.

Are we okay with this phrasing (Zak)?

> Repositories are used not only by software developers but also by software
> users and as such have a large impact on the free software community. The
> criteria aims to promote examples of good ethical practise by showcasing
> repositories that respect user privacy, demonstrate a commitment to free
> software, permit equal access and are consistent with the goals and
> philosophy of the FSF, whether this is by promoting copyleft licensing or
> using the FSF's preferred terminology.

I feel like this should come much sooner, as it's an excellent
introduction.

I don't know if we should emphasize "using the FSF's preferred
terminology", as that's almost guaranteed to start the usual flame wars
on GNU/FSF terminology and distract from the actual message.

> During the past few months a dedicated group of volunteers have been
                            ^, (comma)

> scrutinising every aspect of the criteria.

We've been scrutinizing repository hosts, not the criteria
themselves.  (Well, not anymore, at this point.)

> prevent it from achieving a higher grade, as well as aspects which already
> achieve the criteria in the next grade have been noted.
                                        ^, (comma)

> time to write to the administrators and maintainers of a code hosting
> service not only is their awareness of the need for tools that respect user
         ^, (comma)

> GitHub have responded positively to requests
         ^has

It might be worth keeping; let's see what Zak thinks.  While I don't
think it's an excellent demonstration, GitHub is an influential,
well-respected host, and so being able to mention them doing something
in support of our ideals might be beneficial.

>                                                            Several features
> have already been added by volunteers to the repository service GitLab such
> as the removal of intrusive analytic software and proprietary JavaScript,

GA was removed and replaced with Piwik, correct, but the proprietary
JavaScript wasn't "removed"; it was relicensed:

  https://about.gitlab.com/2015/05/20/gitlab-gitorious-free-software/

That deserves a strong mention.  Maybe something like:

  "[...] analytic software relicensing of proprietary JavaScript"

and maybe even add a link to that blog post on "relicensing of
proprietary JavaScript".  If we want to keep links to a minimum, then
omit it.

> The completed evaluations can be viewed on the [evaluation
> page](http://gnu.org/), while the [criteria
> page](http://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.en.html) offers more
> information on the evaluation process, as well as the criteria
> itself. General discussion regarding the criteria or evaluation can be
> directed to the
> [libreplanet-discuss](https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss)
> mailing list, while interested volunteers with questions or suggestions are
> encouraged to join
> [repo-criteria-discuss](https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/repo-criteria-discuss).

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
https://mikegerwitz.com
FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature