On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 05:47:03 -0700 Jason wrote: > There may be a misunderstanding then Thérèse; the GNU Webmastering > Guidelines had never asked for the Webmasters themselves to write to > the list. https://www.gnu.org/server/standards/#distros
i was referring to step #2 of the new procedure steps on the "Incoming Distros" wiki article 1) The process begins with an application sent to <webmast...@gnu.org> for an initial review. ... 2) Once the webmasters have completed their initial check, they will send the distro to the Workgroup for fully free GNU/Linux distributions mailing list for a full review. 3) Each distro at this point will be assigned an "application manager", ... clearly, the confusion here is rooted in the ambiguity of: "they will send the distro to the Workgroup" - there is surely little confidence or noise reduction in the distro itself writing to the mailing list declaring: "GNU said so ..." - even if a reference to a GNU webmaster ticket is supplied, it is not verifiable AFAIK because that is not a public issue tracker - i would suggest that the GNU server standards and step #2 of the evanluation protocol be ammended to explicitly require the GNU webmaster who gave the initial approval to confirm that to this mailing list using a gnu.org email address - surely that is not too much extra to ask for the sake of rigour and i do wish people would stop throwing the "beureacratic" around - the purpose of the new procedure is to ensure that all distros are given fair treatment in a verifiable way by eliminating any blind spots that could invite suspicion of favoritism or discrimination - so if the GNU webmasters are to play an official role in this, then their decisions should be verifiable - yes? - if not, then there is hardly any reason for their involvement
pgpeAGxfSgVFz.pgp
Description: PGP signature