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

[Donald Robertson]

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

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

[bill-auger]

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?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Jean Louis]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 08:45:15AM -0500, Donald Robertson wrote:
> > It means you certainly do not need too many
> > captains, managers to handle this number of few
> > applications.
> 
> This was a suggestion we received, and I believe there are some people
> who would be interested in taking on such a role, but if people think it
> adds too much overhead we can rework things. The idea is just to make
> sure that there is someone responsible for keeping things moving for
> each individual applicant.

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.

Such checklist may be published on a website, and
people can see which distribution is at what stage
of the process.

You can see it as well, and your people or
managers of those processes can see the exact next
step on what is to be done.

You don't need special software for such tracking,
just decision, making a list of stages that
distribution is moving through, and publishing
it.

You could use org mode within GNU Emacs.

Jean 

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

[Donald Robertson]

On 02/27/2018 03:22 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> 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.

This was a suggestion we received, and I believe there are some people
who would be interested in taking on such a role, but if people think it
adds too much overhead we can rework things. The idea is just to make
sure that there is someone responsible for keeping things moving for
each individual applicant.

> 
> Very nice to be creative.
> 
> Just if that creativity is going to be practical
> and efficient.
> 
> 
> Jean Louis
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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

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

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:25:09 -0500
Donald Robertson  wrote:

> 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.

https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines
can also help a lot as it lists the packages that typically needs to be
taken care of in FSDG compliant distributions.

Denis.


pgpr4lRlf2Wj5.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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