On 02/28/2018 12:08 PM, Jean Louis wrote: > It would be good to have your own > workflow. Steps, one by one on what is to be > done. > > Not just a checklist for free system > distributions, but rather a checklist for the > whole process.
the only thing that the announcement does mention regarding documenting the process was regarding the work-flow stages of the process itself; not anything was mentioned about a checklist of specific criteria - i would very much like to invert that proposal however the "one-by-one procedure steps" of "what is to be done" are only and entirely the evaluation of individual criteria - these criteria have no inherent order - they are appropriately representable by a checklist - and a criteria embodies all of the important information that anyone would care to know - that is what should be documented there is little to document specifically about the progress through any meaningful stages - there are only three such over-all work-flow stages above the details of the criteria evaluation: * stage 1) a brief initial shallow evaluation done by GNU web-masters * stage 2) the presumably longest, if not exhaustive, community evaluation where the meaningful criteria checklist is filled * stage 3) the final approval phase by the FSF where there would be presumably very little remaining to do so a work-flow checklist, as something distinct from a criteria checklist, would only be three items long - there would probably be only a trivial amount of time spent in the first and last phases - and the proposed work-flow checklist itself would not even be created until moving out of stage one into stage two - so the information that a work-flow checklist would convey could be as accurately derived from the criteria checklist alone, as such: * stage 1) the criteria checklist has not yet been created * stage 2) none or some criteria items have been evaluated * stage 3) all criteria items have been evaluated the only meaningful semantics of stage 1 is: "the GNU web-masters received a request for review and will decide *whether or not* to begin the process" - as soon as that is acted upon, either stage 2 would begin immediately or i assume the sender would get some private reply in a timely manner - in stage 1, there is really nothing to document yet the only meaningful semantics of stage 3 is: "the checklist is complete and pending final approval by the FSF" - after that happens, either the distro will appear on the endorsed distros web page or perhaps a problem was found and the distro is sent back to stage 2 so the initial and final stages are each singular states and should consume only the smallest proportion of the overall time; and so are the least interesting to anyone - but that is so far the only thing that is to be documented clearly, stage 2 is the only one worth documenting - and as i said, it's semantics is only and entirely the evaluation of individual criteria checklist items - and nothing of this phase is decided to be documented other than in the form of this mailing list - but no one in posterity would want to comb over the mailing list archives to root out these details - an explicit checklist would be vastly more helpful to anyone interested - and i underline, especially in cases where the distro takes a long time to achieve 100% criteria conformance - even if 100% criteria conformance is never achieved, the existing checklist would still be a valuable resource to anyone who cares to takes the distro to the next step in the future or liberate their own copy of it it seems very simple to me - do people agree?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
