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 <[email protected]>, 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 <https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros>. 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 <[email protected]> for an initial review. The distro should be sent to <https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 we may very occasionally have a pressing policy/mission reason for focusing on a newer application over one that's been waiting. While each application will take a variable amount of time depending on the particular issues involved, I think being clear about these steps and monitoring the process more closely will help to keep things moving. I think with these items in place, we'll be able to improve the process and also make sure that it is being handled in a fair manner. But obviously, if there is more we can do (or if you think this is way off base), then I want to get your feedback. We can't do this important work on our own; we need your help in letting users know which distros they can trust as being fully free. Thank you all so much for your work in this area. -- 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
