Hi,
As you may be aware, over the past few months a team of volunteers at
the Free Software Foundation have been working on the GNU Ethical
Repository Criteria. This is a criteria that rates code hosting
repositories such as Savannah on their commitment to the right of their
users, in areas such as free software, accessibility, and privacy.
Although the criteria itself was released in 2015, at that time no
repositories were graded, as work was still being finalised on the
content of the criteria itself.
More recently, several of the more popular code hosting repository
services - including Savannah - have been evaluated according to the
criteria. This evaluation is to be published soon, and upon publication
an announcement will be released by the FSF providing information about
the released evaluation.
There has been ongoing discussion regarding the content of the
announcement on the GNU repo-criteria-discuss mailing list and one
recent suggestion was that a quote from repositories that had passed the
criteria (such as Savannah) would be a good possible inclusion.
I know that you'll be very busy working on and updating Savannah, but if
one of the Savannah maintainers had the time I would really appreciate a
few short answers to the questions below, in a format that would be
suitable for quoting for the announcement.
Thanks,
Andrew
Why is it important that Savannah passes the ethical repository criteria?
What advice would you give to other code hosting repositories that have
not passed the criteria and / or do not view it as something important?
Why are the issues raised in the criteria important and / or relevant
today for users of code repository services?
Any other comments you have about Savannah and the ethical repository
criteria?
