Hi Emiliano,
On 08/03/2022 22:54, Emiliano Vavassori wrote:
Of course, we are available to further clarify the proposal, if needed,
and we eagerly await for your input on this following version.
Proposal seems reasonable.
This “attic” space will have, at minimum, the following characteristics:
All sounds fine.
## De-atticization
A part of the project that is actually present inside the “attic” can
be moved back into active development, whenever sufficient interest
around the code emerges.
## De-atticization requirements
A repository can be deatticized when it reaches the following requirements:
• A publicly available repository has to be present, collecting new
modifications to the initial project. This repository needs to be
based on the initial atticized repository;
• The modified code has to be open source/free software under an
OSI-approved license;
• At least three different developers have committed changes to the
forked repository, ideally not all of them affiliated to the same
entity;
• Every developer should have pushed 5-10 non-trivial commits over the
span of at least three months;
It would help to have another bullet here:
* These active developers should all support its de-atticization.
I think this was implicit, but lets make it explicit =)
The following text is proposed to be included in the README of any
atticized repository:
Should be included in the README too I think.
Otherwise, seems reasonable.
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity
Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks
(M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
