On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:57:44 +0200 Denis wrote: > > the point of the 2018 changes and the "brief final review", was > > that the community would do all of the difficult and > > time-consuming work - the FSF only needs to read the mailing > > list messages, and can largely trust the reviewers findings > > the FSF's role needs to be no more than to double-check what > > the "application manager" has documented > The issue here may be precisely the amount of work needed to do this > double-check.
i could give two points of reference - pureos and hyperbola were fully reviewed and endorsed within a few (2-3) months - you made the argument that hyperbola was easier, because it was a fork of an already-endorsed distro - but pureos was not - if that was a factor, i would expect that pureos would have taken much longer than hyperbola, for that reason alone - there was obviously much more to double-check also, the hyperbola review took place after the change which relieved most of the work from the FSF - the brief final review was all that the FSF needed to do for hyperbola - that makes two factors which should have made the pureos process much longer - but it was not there is probably a third factor also - hyperbola's package selection is much more modest than the average distro - it has many fewer bloated GUI applications (eg: no desktop suites such as GNOME, KDE, etc), which is where the majority of freedom and privacy problems are found to me, that suggests that either the double-checking is not very demanding, or that the FSF was watching the pureos process unfold (reading the mailing list), or was involved directly all along, and so a secondary double-checking phase was not needed either way, it suggest that a review (if without delays) takes less than 3 months, regardless of the distro, or the portion of the workload done by the FSF
