Hi, Apart from the principal discussion whether FSFE is well-equipped to define "coding standards" without defining a scope for that discussion, I'd like to address the introductory paragraph that almost reads as FUD to me:
> The (F)LOSS ecosystem is currently mostly focusing on quantity over quality Do you have any evidence of this? Intuitively, I would rather assume the opposite: proprietary software has a higher incentive to focus on quantity over quality, while writing FLOSS software means that one's code is under public scrutiny and writing "bad" code can potentially harm your future job prospects. Data from code analyser vendors seems to support this thesis: https://blog.semmle.com/open-source-vs-proprietary-software/ http://www.ciol.com/coverity-scan-report-source-software-quality-outpaces-proprietary-code/ If there is newer data or academic research that suggests otherwise, I'd like to hear about it. > which results in bloat of software that is not reliable in a mission > critical environment (and thus making it inferior to proprietary software) Is that the reason why all core internet protocols are dominated by FLOSS implementations? > or software that requires “reinventing the wheel” because of authors bad > decision (lack of abstracting → Malpractice). Yes, "reinventing the wheel" or "not invented here" (NIH) does also affect FLOSS communities. Yet proprietary software development practically depends on it. > This proposal is expected to contribute to the solution. You should start with defining the problem, ideally in a quantifiable way. Here are questions that your problem description could potentially benefit from: What is the problem domain? My guess it's not "the (F)LOSS ecosystem", but judging on your example it may be as narrow as "bourne shell scripting". The great thing about this is that providing coding standards or best practices for a narrow set of languages and use-cases is far easier (meaning "actually possible") than for each and every programming language in present- day use. Is there prior art that is relevant? Best practices are highly valued in both FLOSS and proprietary environments. Hence there are already ample resources, albeit not necessarily evenly distributed among programming languages and domains. As an example, consider the C++ best guidelines: https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#main Looking at academic literature may also yield good approaches for your problem description. What makes the FSFE well-suited to contribute to the solution? I mean, yes, I support the FSFE and I think the world would be a worse place without it - not to mention the many great individuals that are part of FSFE and the FSFE community. I also don't want to discourage you from discussing topics like this on FSFE community channels. After all, we all care about creating high quality FLOSS software that empowers all users. But going back to my C++ example: who could be better suited to providing best practices for a language than the language community itself? Regards, Johannes _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
