[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
I think your proposed changes are good. Does anyone disagree or have
more to add?
I think it is enough if we would change a few words. I think this
addresses the problems I relayed without creating the troubles that
others have mentioned.
Indicate the web focus by changing the first sentence from
> We developed these criteria to judge services for hosting parts of the
> GNU
> > 1. In the above example of GitHub getting grade F for important
> > site functionality requiring nonfree JavaScript, for example,
> > we could perhaps link to an email list discussion where we refer
> > to a particular instance of important functionality breaking
> > when
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> for anything other than the web,
> people just would not think to throw
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> other than savannah, they all have that issue - none have adequate
> licensing
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > 1. Clarify that the criteria apply only to source code hosting websites;
> >
On Thu, 16 May 2024 17:38:47 -0400 Richard wrote:
> > 1. Clarify that the criteria apply only to source code hosting websites;
> >some projects may want to use non-website source code hosting.
>
> Are there really projects that want to do this?
> Do any projects do this now?
it is not
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 1. In the above example of GitHub getting grade F for important
> site
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 2. The evaluations are inconsistent among different repositories.
> For
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> Finally, I remarked during our conversation that it is inconvenient
> to have
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 1. Clarify that the criteria apply only to source code hosting websites;
>
Dear Bill,
It seems we have already fixed point 1 and are aware of point 2,
but it seems also that I was unclear about what I meant by "detail",
so I explain.
For cases where we already have the detail, the suggestion is to include
it in another webpage.
> for example: "no non-free JS" -
I
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:33:33 + Fischers wrote:
> However, he would like to have link to the detailed evaluation
> of the relevant criterion. He explains, if I am the one running
> the repository, I want instructions of how I can improve the score.
there is no elaborate or comprehensive
Dear colleagues,
I recently informed an associate of the GNU ethical repository criteria
evaluations. I relay his critiques.
1. It is good that we have a summary of the reason for a repository
failing to move up the next grade. For example, it is good that we
say this:
Things that
14 matches
Mail list logo
