On 02/28/2018 09:49 PM, bill-auger wrote: > On 02/28/2018 12:08 PM, Jean Louis wrote: >> It would be good to have your own >> workflow. Steps, one by one on what is to be >> done. >> >> Not just a checklist for free system >> distributions, but rather a checklist for the >> whole process. > > > the only thing that the announcement does mention regarding documenting > the process was regarding the work-flow stages of the process itself; > not anything was mentioned about a checklist of specific criteria - i > would very much like to invert that proposal however > > the "one-by-one procedure steps" of "what is to be done" are only and > entirely the evaluation of individual criteria - these criteria have no > inherent order - they are appropriately representable by a checklist - > and a criteria embodies all of the important information that anyone > would care to know - that is what should be documented > > there is little to document specifically about the progress through any > meaningful stages - there are only three such over-all work-flow stages > above the details of the criteria evaluation: > > * stage 1) a brief initial shallow evaluation done by GNU web-masters > > * stage 2) the presumably longest, if not exhaustive, community > evaluation where the meaningful criteria checklist is filled > > * stage 3) the final approval phase by the FSF where there would be > presumably very little remaining to do > > so a work-flow checklist, as something distinct from a criteria > checklist, would only be three items long - there would probably be only > a trivial amount of time spent in the first and last phases - and the > proposed work-flow checklist itself would not even be created until > moving out of stage one into stage two - so the information that a > work-flow checklist would convey could be as accurately derived from the > criteria checklist alone, as such: > > * stage 1) the criteria checklist has not yet been created > * stage 2) none or some criteria items have been evaluated > * stage 3) all criteria items have been evaluated > > the only meaningful semantics of stage 1 is: "the GNU web-masters > received a request for review and will decide *whether or not* to begin > the process" - as soon as that is acted upon, either stage 2 would begin > immediately or i assume the sender would get some private reply in a > timely manner - in stage 1, there is really nothing to document yet > > the only meaningful semantics of stage 3 is: "the checklist is complete > and pending final approval by the FSF" - after that happens, either the > distro will appear on the endorsed distros web page or perhaps a problem > was found and the distro is sent back to stage 2 > > so the initial and final stages are each singular states and should > consume only the smallest proportion of the overall time; and so are the > least interesting to anyone - but that is so far the only thing that is > to be documented > > clearly, stage 2 is the only one worth documenting - and as i said, it's > semantics is only and entirely the evaluation of individual criteria > checklist items - and nothing of this phase is decided to be documented > other than in the form of this mailing list - but no one in posterity > would want to comb over the mailing list archives to root out these > details - an explicit checklist would be vastly more helpful to anyone > interested - and i underline, especially in cases where the distro takes > a long time to achieve 100% criteria conformance - even if 100% criteria > conformance is never achieved, the existing checklist would still be a > valuable resource to anyone who cares to takes the distro to the next > step in the future or liberate their own copy of it > > it seems very simple to me - do people agree? >
I'm definitely in agreement. Having each item of the criteria on a checklist that is publicly documented I think would be a great step towards making the system more transparent. I think it will also provide a great resource for people who are thinking about endorsement to be able to see which items tricked up other projects so they can start thinking about them early. -- Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D. Licensing & Compliance Manager Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone +1-617-542-5942 Fax +1-617-542-2652 ex. 56
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature