[Dev] [GNU-linux-libre] Amendment proposal for incoming distros page

André Silva emulatorman at hyperbola.info
Fri May 4 10:24:00 -03 2018

On 05/04/2018 11:54 AM, bill-auger wrote:
> the 4th bullet point on the "Incoming_distros" page was meant to address the
> case of a stalled review[1] - it was added as a exit plan for if a distro has
> known FSDG issues that are not addressed in a timely manor by the maintainers -
> in which case they should be moved to the "does not comply" section and the
> review manager can be relieved of over-sight
> it does not specifically speak to the potential case where there are no known
> problems found with the distro; but the review has simply stalled or the review
> manager is unresponsive - in which case it would be incorrect to move it to the
> "does not comply" section; but there is no other category to move it to
> there is no clear remedy either other than finding another review manager, much
> the same as if it were the first day; so probably there would be no new wording
> to add to the procedure - i think it already says something to the effect: "...
> unless a new review manger can be found"
> surely, it is not a perfect system - all reviewers are volunteers and it is not
> at all clear how many or few there are at any time - the real solution would be
> to assemble a healthy team of volunteers
> this thread has made me realize what a big task a thorough review really is - if
> the requirement was a 100% comprehensive audit if the entire distro, all
> software documentation, and rebuilding from complete corresponding sources; i
> would think it would take a team of reviewers working full-time a good part of ayear to complete - the actual requirement is not so stringent, but there is no full-time team either - to do a reasonably thorough job with a very small team of part-time volunteers, i would expect to take a very long time with several jerks and lulls along the way
> i will add my personal opinion here, that i would not see it as unreasonable if
> the review process were mandated to last exactly two years, no more and no less
> - that could allow ample time for the review process and for the distro to
> address any FSDG issues; and it would also ensure that the distro and it's
> management were capable of lasting two years before being endorsed - i could see
> some extra value in that of the confidence that the distro has been in
> communication with and in good standing with the FSDG reviewers for something
> that resembles "the long term" before being endorsed - there is surely less
> confidence when the review process is brief, or if the guidelines are not
> applied perpetually - that was the topic of a rather lengthy discussion recently
> - and i will add that confidence is diminished in distros that do not
> participate in these discussions before, during, and after they have been
> endorsed
> probably the only way to prevent a total stagnation would be to keep some
> conversation going during the lulls - i dont think it is reasonable to put any
> time limits on the actual progress points without a solid dedicated team of
> reviewers - i would only suggest extreme measures (such as replacing the review
> manager or cancelling the review) in cases where there has been absolutely no
> communication for several months
> [1]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros

Yes, I totally agree with you, since my personal opinion this thread was
made only as contribution to enrich the incoming distros page.

Perhaps i don't have enough knowledge of the facts in how an endorsement
process is carried out, however i volunteered to do my best and my doors
is always open for you if you need help for any contribution or some
help from our distro, Hyperbola. In fact, i think it's the goal of our
community and all distros in gnu-linux-libre mailing lists.

Otherwise Hyperbola Project and me are in no rush with endorsement
because our project don't depend on it to continue our development; even
more we understand that all or at least the majority of users are
volunteers here and a review is so complex and hard, mainly for a distro
that is a complex project, and even then if LibrePlanet or FSF have a
full-time team dedicated and focused on it, it doesn't make it less
complex and hard to do.

Anything you need from me and Hyperbola, please let us know that we are
ready whenever you need us. :)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.hyperbola.info/pipermail/dev/attachments/20180504/6bd49532/attachment.bin>

More information about the Dev mailing list