Good idea.
I would just remove the "only" from "Releases: source code only". Maybe
say "Releases: source code at the minimum" ? It's not a problem to have
some projects also release binaries, is it?
Shouldn't there be also something about a minimum documentation? Not
necessarily doc on source code, but doc on the project (minimal web
site,...)?
I can also confirm that Bertrand was talking about this to me at
Budapest. So "ages >= 2 months". :-)
Vincent
On 2015-01-06 18:28, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi,
Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages, and in a
related discussion on board@ people seem to agree that having this can
be useful.
So let's start - here's my rough initial list of items:
Code: open, discoverable, fully public history, documented provenance
Quality: security, backwards compatibility, etc
Contributions: welcome from anyone based on technical quality
License: Apache License, dependencies must not put additional restrictions
Community: inclusive, meritocratic, no dictators, clear documented path to entry
Discussions and decisions: asynchronous, in a single central place, archived
Decision making: consensus, votes if needed, technical vetoes in the worst case
Independence: from any corporate or organizational influence
Releases: source code only, notices, long-lived release format
Related efforts, inspiration:
http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/12/11/open-or-fauxpen-use-the-oss-watch-openness-rating-tool-to-find-out/
http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:16
-Bertrand
--
VK private signature Vincent Keunen
