Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

[bill-auger]

i like this announcement very much :)

i really must say "Thanks to Bob" as well - but then i really must point
out that i also tried to make the FSF aware of that same
"Incoming_distros" page[1] and "FreedSoftware" libreplanet group[2]
about six months ago - when i raised the very same issues that were
answered today (thanks to bob) regarding the transparency of the
evaluation process and i offered several suggestions that could inform
and involve the community more - unfortunately, my concerns back then
received not a single reply to this day; which was quite discouraging
until today - i invite everyone today to please do read that post if you
have not already[3] - i think bob would agree it quite complements this
thread


[1]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros
[2]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:FreedSoftware
[3]:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2017-08/msg00035.html



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

[bill-auger]

i dont think speed or efficiency was ever a problem or even an objective
- regardless of who was "active" or "pro-active" whatever that means :)
the key thing that was elucidated in this announcement is that there was
little transparency - regardless of what was happening or not happening,
either on this list or behind closed doors, there was no definitive
order to the process; so no one knew which distros were even to be
considered, nor when, nor what progress was made or consensus reached
regarding any - and the distros themselves were unclear on how to
initiate the process



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

[Jean Louis]

Hello Jason,

I surely agree on that. Free software exists due
to volunteers and review shall also be done by
volunteers. 

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 02:05:36PM -0800, Jason Self wrote:
> Jean Louis, the idea of having volunteers do the reviewing before the FSF 
> gets involved helps spare their limited resources. Also, having more eyes 
> looking into things is surely better than fewer ones (i.e., if it were only 
> FSF staff.)

It shall be practical, so that no delays happen
when a distribution developers ask for review.

Maybe volunteers shall be found right now, and
checklist shall be made on what is to be done.

As there are few distributions that asked for
endorsement in the past and are in the queue.

Jean

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

[Jason Self]

Thanks for the work on this Donald!

It would also be good if the existing resources could be updated to reflect 
this. For example, https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-
guidelines.html mentions "If you know about a free distribution that isn't 
listed there, please ask its developers write to  with a 
description of their system and a link to their web page."

Which, from the process outlined, should be the LAST place to go. Under the 
process you've mentioned that email address should be changed to 
webmast...@gnu.org.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

[Jason Self]

Jean Louis, the idea of having volunteers do the reviewing before the FSF 
gets involved helps spare their limited resources. Also, having more eyes 
looking into things is surely better than fewer ones (i.e., if it were only 
FSF staff.)

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

[Jean Louis]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 02:25:09PM -0500, Donald Robertson wrote:
> For example, the FSF has not rejected ConnochaetOS; we have never
> reviewed the distro because they have never made it to the step where
> their application was handed over to us to review. In looking through
> the past history it seems they went through several cycles of people
> looking at their work, but we at FSF never clarified what the steps of
> the process were or where they were at in that process. We were never
> clear about how the process was supposed to end.

It sounds like German bureaucracy. You should not
be passive, but rather pro-active. Finally your
efforts are important and that is why people are
contributing to the FSF.

There is free software distribution out there and
somebody is crying to get endorsed?

Don't wait for them to make it to the step where
their application is ahdned over to you for
review.

As if you don't know the steps, don't expect those
developers to know the steps either.

Be proactive, get in action.

What you are doing now is good action.

> * When they arrive on the linux-libre mailing list, they will receive an
> "application manager", an individual volunteer on the list who wants to
> take on the role of ensuring that their application continues to move
> forward. If we have many applicants at the same time, there could be
> multiple "application managers", but otherwise it could possibly just be
> one "application team captain" making sure
> things stay on track.

In former Yugoslavia they say, too many lazy
grandmothers, lazy is going to be the grandchild.

It means you certainly do not need too many
captains, managers to handle this number of few
applications.

Very nice to be creative.

Just if that creativity is going to be practical
and efficient.


Jean Louis

[GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

[Donald Robertson]

Hello all,

I wanted to write to you all to discuss the distro endorsement process,
and to explain how we hope to improve that process going forward. I've
seen a fair amount of confusion here on this list and elsewhere as to
how the process actually works. That confusion is my fault, I wasn't
paying close enough attention to what was going on here on this list and
elsewhere. I didn't see that what was going on was different from the
expectations that I had about the system, but that's clear to me now.

The endorsement process right now goes through three steps. The
applicant sends an application to , who do an
initial check of the application, making sure it is the developers of
the distro applying and that there are no glaring errors. Once the
webmasters are satisfied with the situation, they then hand them over to
this mailing list, where a more in-depth review occurs. Once it clears
review here, the applicant is sent along to the licensing team for final
review and endorsement. But this complete system isn't laid out clearly
for applicants, particularly that last step of handing over an applicant
to the licensing team. Because we weren't clear about how this system
works, we ended up causing some problems and delays that were never
necessary.

For example, the FSF has not rejected ConnochaetOS; we have never
reviewed the distro because they have never made it to the step where
their application was handed over to us to review. In looking through
the past history it seems they went through several cycles of people
looking at their work, but we at FSF never clarified what the steps of
the process were or where they were at in that process. We were never
clear about how the process was supposed to end.

Their experience I think really shows that we have to be more
transparent about the process, but also that I need to monitor it more
closely as well. I should have picked up on what was going wrong in the
system last year, and so I apologize for that delay. I took over
handling endorsements at the end of 2016, but haven't done the type of
review and adjustments to the process that I probably should have. But
we are going to fix that now.

What I'd like to do is lay out how I think we can all work together on
this moving forward, and get your feedback on that plan.

Thanks to Bob Call, I was recently made aware of the existence of this
review page on LibrePlanet
. This is a really useful
document and I thank everyone who was working on it. I think we can use
it to even greater effect in making the review process more transparent,
by documenting the steps a distro will go through on their way to
endorsement there as well. In short, those steps would be:

* The distro will apply via  for an initial review.
The distro should be sent to
 at this point so they
understand the process and can track their progress. The webmasters will
do their initial review to weed out distros that clearly are not going
to meet the criteria.

* Once they pass that stage, they will be handed over to this mailing
list for additional feedback and to work out any issues that might remain.

* When they arrive on the linux-libre mailing list, they will receive an
"application manager", an individual volunteer on the list who wants to
take on the role of ensuring that their application continues to move
forward. If we have many applicants at the same time, there could be
multiple "application managers", but otherwise it could possibly just be
one "application team captain" making sure things stay on track.

* If the list is satisfied with the distro, they will be sent to
 for final review and endorsement.

But what happens when a distro cannot meet all the criteria? How does
that process end? For that I think we need to make sure that the FSF
makes the final call for a rejection. In the past, sometimes a distro
would write to us at licensing for our perspective, and I think that is
ok when it happens. But the best course is just for us at the FSF to be
more involved in discussions that are taking place here on the list. I
certainly haven't been active here in the past, but going forward you
should be seeing my name a lot more. We should also make clear that
while this process is ongoing and they should work through things here
on the list, that if the applicant is struggling that they can still
contact  directly to ping us for additional help.

While this process is ongoing, we'll use the LibrePlanet page to
document where in that process each particular distro is, and use it as
the reference for when they have questions as to the standing of their
application. We intend to handle applications in the order they are
received, allowing of course for the fact that some distros are more
responsive/quicker at handling issues and so may move through the
process faster, and