Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[André Silva]

On 03/22/2018 07:57 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> Hyperbola had a fairly limited thread on this list.
> .
> But it seems to have just petered out. I think it would make sense to
> ask if they are still interested, and if they are, to go ahead and run
> them as a test case for how we process things on the list (i.e., assign
> them a person in charge of their review). They didn't really get much of
> a review previously, so I think taking the time to work through it now
> would be reasonable.

Hi Donald, we are still interested in endorsement, let me know if you
need anything on our side.

By the way, I've improved our main wiki [0] and presentation [1] pages
for further details about our distribution.

[0]:https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:start
[1]:https://www.hyperbola.info/about/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Donald,

ConnochaetOS maintainer here

Am Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:57:43 -0400
schrieb Donald Robertson :

> connochaetos had a much longer discussion, and I believe is still
> interested in endorsement (I will doublecheck that), but had an
> outstanding issue that the list felt barred their endorsement. This is
> the part in the process where we at the FSF have to make the final
> call. So it's not quite 'ready for FSF review', but more like 'ready
> for appeal'? I'm not quite sure how to word that. But going forward I
> want to make sure that someone in their position gets a response from
> FSF staff.

* Yes, we are still interested in endorsement.

* It wasn't "the list" as such, it was one person on this list who
  said because we are using a Debian derived blob-free kernel we
  wouldn't fulfill the criteria for endorsement. However, PureOS was
  endorsed with using basically the same Debian based kernel. 

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[bill-auger]

On 03/22/2018 05:25 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> I agree: if a distro can't fix a freedom bug for an extended period of time, 
> we should assume utter incompetence or bad faith, and there should be a path 
> to revoke/reset the certification.

sure for those blatant reasons - but generally just to have a mechanism
to discourage stagnation or "petering out" of interest - to keep at the
least, the review manager and the distro maintainers exhibiting the
ambition to progress forward at some detectable speed - accommodating
also for the event that the distro maintainers are in good faith but
perhaps it is the review manager that is impeding progress



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[Ivan Zaigralin]

I agree: if a distro can't fix a freedom bug for an extended period of time, 
we should assume utter incompetence or bad faith, and there should be a path 
to revoke/reset the certification. To keep things fair, some of that policy 
should be written down. At the same time, not all freedom bugs are the same 
severity, and not all of them are easy to fix, so it would probably pay to 
remain flexible about time frames.

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 16:08:47 bill-auger wrote:
> On 03/22/2018 03:30 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> > But we don't have to assume that
> > is needed just because a lot of time has passed.
> 
> i think that is a valid concern though - to allow for some "on-hold"
> phase and for when it becomes clear that the distro maintainers are
> expressing no interest or making significant  progress towards
> addressing issues - i propose this as an addendum to the protocol
> description if this sounds reasonable to everyone:
> 
> 
> --
> 
> * If at any time, it becomes clear that no significant progress is being
> made toward addressing documented criteria discrepancies or
> deficiencies, the application manager or the FSF licensing team may move
> the distro's entry to the list under the 'Distros that are defunct or do
> not comply with the GNU FSDG' heading; where they may sit indefinitely.
> This could be considered as an some reasonably brief amount of time
> (perhaps to assign a new application manager or grace period for the
> distro maintainers to respond); but unless there is timely objection or
> discussion by the distro maintainers, this may conclude the review
> process and the application manager may be relieved of it's over-sight.
> After the application manager steps down, the distro would need to
> re-apply to the GNU webmasters to re-start the process. The state of the
> checklist page and notes should be retained in order to inform future
> reviewers or those who may fork or otherwise assume stewardship of the
> distro.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[bill-auger]

On 03/22/2018 04:08 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> This could be considered as an some reasonably brief amount of time


oops - i hit 'cut' - that sentence was intended as:

  This could be considered as an "on-hold" phase for some reasonably
brief amount of time



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[bill-auger]

On 03/22/2018 03:30 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> But we don't have to assume that
> is needed just because a lot of time has passed.
> 

i think that is a valid concern though - to allow for some "on-hold"
phase and for when it becomes clear that the distro maintainers are
expressing no interest or making significant  progress towards
addressing issues - i propose this as an addendum to the protocol
description if this sounds reasonable to everyone:


--

* If at any time, it becomes clear that no significant progress is being
made toward addressing documented criteria discrepancies or
deficiencies, the application manager or the FSF licensing team may move
the distro's entry to the list under the 'Distros that are defunct or do
not comply with the GNU FSDG' heading; where they may sit indefinitely.
This could be considered as an some reasonably brief amount of time
(perhaps to assign a new application manager or grace period for the
distro maintainers to respond); but unless there is timely objection or
discussion by the distro maintainers, this may conclude the review
process and the application manager may be relieved of it's over-sight.
After the application manager steps down, the distro would need to
re-apply to the GNU webmasters to re-start the process. The state of the
checklist page and notes should be retained in order to inform future
reviewers or those who may fork or otherwise assume stewardship of the
distro.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[Donald Robertson]

On 03/21/2018 02:54 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> i just re-worded the work-flow related headings on the "incoming
> distros" wiki page to avoid confusion - most notably the former heading:
> "Distros ready to be evaluated by the FSF licensing team" which had four
> distros listed beneath - that was changed to: "Distros that have
> requested consideration"
> 
> those four distros are:
> 
>   * connochaetos
>   * freeslack
>   * hyperbola
>   * libertybsd

I've moved freeslack and libertybsd into the FSF review category, as
they both passed inspection on the list quite some time ago and had
started discussions with the licensing team, which I unfortunately
didn't keep running. But I'll get back on track with them.

Hyperbola had a fairly limited thread on this list.
.
But it seems to have just petered out. I think it would make sense to
ask if they are still interested, and if they are, to go ahead and run
them as a test case for how we process things on the list (i.e., assign
them a person in charge of their review). They didn't really get much of
a review previously, so I think taking the time to work through it now
would be reasonable.

connochaetos had a much longer discussion, and I believe is still
interested in endorsement (I will doublecheck that), but had an
outstanding issue that the list felt barred their endorsement. This is
the part in the process where we at the FSF have to make the final call.
So it's not quite 'ready for FSF review', but more like 'ready for
appeal'? I'm not quite sure how to word that. But going forward I want
to make sure that someone in their position gets a response from FSF staff.

> 
> the problem is that there is no indication here that those dostros
> actually have requested consideration - previously, these entries have
> been nominated by anyone (and perhaps without even informing the mailing
> list) so it is not clear if all of these are actually interested in
> endorsement - the ones that i added personally ('gnuinos' and 'heads')
> were requested by their maintainers and i added their contact info to
> the listing - i think contact info should be added for the others as
> well - connochaetos and hyperbola i do know have a demonstrable history
> on the mailing list of the maintainers interest so i added their contact
> info - it is not clear though if freeslack or libertybsd have explicitly
> expressed interest - without combing over the history myself, does
> anyone know the history of these on this list?
> 
> or, should the "slate be wiped clean" and connochaetos, hyperbola, and
> possibly the others be asked to start from the beginning of the new
> protocol?
> 

-- 
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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[bill-auger]

On 03/21/2018 11:42 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> This is consistent with the existing policy of
> not continually evaluating the distro after it's been accepted. 

i dont think that is a formal policy - one of the strict criteria is to
be "actively maintained" - i would like to think that it is only the
case that no one has done any follow-up reviews - adfeno and myself did
just that last summer for perhaps the first time - there were some
significant issues to address and we created a dedicated wiki page[1] to
note them

there has been a long discussion of this recently whereby static
read-only "live" distros could probably be exempt but in most cases, i
think the consensus is that distros that are demonstrably defunct (such
as BLAG) should not be actively endorsed - and that should even perhaps
be extended to include those which exist but are unresponsive to the
community (such as proteanOS)

if it is the policy to distros to be grandfathered in all perpetuity, i
really do think that should be re-considered - at least in the cases
where there is no longer any concrete distro in existence and/or where
there is no maintainer participating on this list - i think these should
perhaps be moved to a category of "historical mention"


[1]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Periodic_Distro_Status_Review



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[Donald Robertson]

On 03/21/2018 11:42 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 19:47:37 Jason Self wrote:
>> bill-auger  wrote ..
>>
>>> BTW - the actual OP for free-slack is here:
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2016-07/msg00021.html
>>
>> OK so freeslack can probably be updated that it's on hold pending a
>> name change. (Based on Donald's 2017-04-06 email quoted at
>> https://www.freeslack.net/forum/index.php?t=msg=7=15

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[Jason Self]

Jean Louis  wrote ..
> My suggestion is that FSF and volunteers skip the
> common bureaucracy and skip to community review
> manager right now to handle those distributions
> that already applied.

I had already looked at Hyperbola before the new process started.
Finding no problems I told Don about it and kicked the can over to the
FSF for the final decision.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[Jason Self]

Ivan Zaigralin  wrote ..

> Erm, you would want distro maintainers to re-do the paperwork 
> because FSF took a year evaluating a simple query?

No I don't. Notice that the date of Don's message to them is April 6
2017. So, I meant a year after the FSF got back to them.

But I see now that I had missed the part where the people of the
distro got back to them with name options so I mistakenly thought that
the FSF was waiting on the distro to change names. Since I now see
it's the opposite it renders my initial point moot.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[Jean Louis]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 03:34:03PM -0400, bill-auger wrote:
> ok thanks krt - those links are pretty convincing - so the real question
> is "should these be grandfathered into the process and their entries
> moved from "Distros that have requested consideration" to "Distros
> currently being evaluated by the community" and have an evaluation
> results page created for them immediately - or should they be asked to
> start from the begining of the new protocol by sending email to the GNU
> webmasters
> 
> if bypassing the GNU webmasters for these, the new protocol requires at
> least that each be assigned a community review manager now

My suggestion is that FSF and volunteers skip the
common bureaucracy and skip to community review
manager right now to handle those distributions
that already applied.

Jean