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
