Re: (re-)evaluation of notabug.org

[bill-auger]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 06:25:30 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> in summary, i see only two criteria which are clearly failing:
> B0 and A+5

i just realized that i omitted A9 - i was following the wiki
checklist, which had a bug, preventing A9 from being rendered

notabug does not satisfy A9

  Insists that each nontrivial file in a package clearly and
  unambiguously state how it is licensed. (A9)

i wonder if this criteria could be relaxed to "Recommend ..." or
"Explains the importance of ...; or for it to be moved to the A+
class - that is not to argue against the criteria itself; but in
practice, it will probably prevent any forge other than savannah
from ever fulfilling the A class completely - it is not likely
that any forge would ever be able to enforce it, technically;
though that would be a great feature

enforcing it would be an admin task; and it would rely on users
reporting offending repos - surely the admins alone, can not
police it, with thousands of users; and in practice, it is not
likely that users would ever report offending repos - the ideal
is great; but in practice, this is not going to actually happen,
not on savannah either