On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 2015-01-06 18:53, Vincent Keunen wrote: > >> Good idea. >> >> I would just remove the "only" from "Releases: source code only". Maybe >> say "Releases: source code at the minimum" ? It's not a problem to have >> some projects also release binaries, is it? >> > > Releasing binaries have, to this point, always been a convenience service > provided by individuals, but that may very well change with the new code > signing service. I agree that this will need some mulling over. The "always" is relative. AOO has as a project released binaries since incubator and unless I have misunderstood something a number of our java projects make jar files available. > > >> Shouldn't there be also something about a minimum documentation? Not >> necessarily doc on source code, but doc on the project (minimal web >> site,...)? >> > > I would add to that something about where discussions/decisions take > place, possibly something about contacting projects; private for > personal/security issues (provided they get disclosed publicly if it's a > security issue and it has been fixed), public for all else. Some projects > unfortunately have a tendency to use their private lists for much more than > committer votes and security issues, which I find is bad practice. +1 rgds jan i > > With regards, > Daniel. > > >> I can also confirm that Bertrand was talking about this to me at >> Budapest. So "ages >= 2 months". :-) >> >> Vincent >> >> 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 >>> >> >> > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
