But that then provides the ability to create a larger eco-system of binary providers.
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org> > wrote: > > I would add something about the build of the sources. Because having sources > without having a repeatable build or having no clue about how to build it, it > makes the sources quite useless. > > I had some troubles recently with a project. Its build depends on a resource > which is not available anymore. And I find it quite shameful since it was a > project about a build system. > > Nicolas > >> 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 >
