On 1/8/15 6:53 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > But that then provides the ability to create a larger eco-system of > binary providers.
I know I'm late to the party, but are we advocating that only having binaries provided by third parties is a good thing, or a bad thing? We provide software for the public good. Much of the software we provide happens to be fairly technical, but even so that does not mean that most of our actual users are compiling and building everything themselves. I'd even bet that the majority of our individual direct users actually grab binary or jar releases rather than original sources for building. I suppose CD30 covers this in the basic case: build tools - to produce the entire project from the sources - should be widely available. But I definitely think that's important to consider, to make our software truly useful for users. - Shane > >> On Jan 6, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Nicolas Lalevée >> <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org> wrote: >> >> I would add something about the build of the sources. Because >> having sources without having a repeatable build or having no clue >> about how to build it, it makes the sources quite useless. >> >> I had some troubles recently with a project. Its build depends on a >> resource which is not available anymore. And I find it quite >> shameful since it was a project about a build system. >> >> Nicolas >> >>> On 2015-01-06 18:28, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages, and in >>>> a related discussion on board@ people seem to agree that having >>>> this can be useful. >>>> >>>> So let's start - here's my rough initial list of items: >>>> >>>> Code: open, discoverable, fully public history, documented >>>> provenance Quality: security, backwards compatibility, etc >>>> Contributions: welcome from anyone based on technical quality >>>> License: Apache License, dependencies must not put additional >>>> restrictions Community: inclusive, meritocratic, no dictators, >>>> clear documented path to entry Discussions and decisions: >>>> asynchronous, in a single central place, archived Decision >>>> making: consensus, votes if needed, technical vetoes in the >>>> worst case Independence: from any corporate or organizational >>>> influence Releases: source code only, notices, long-lived >>>> release format >>>> >>>> Related efforts, inspiration: >>>> >>>> http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/12/11/open-or-fauxpen-use-the-oss-watch-openness-rating-tool-to-find-out/ >>>> >>>> >>>> http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:16 >>>> >>>> -Bertrand >> >
