Re: [Action Required] glibc decision to use CTI services.

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>]

On 8/30/23 13:31, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
>> Even then, this would IMHO be a move for GNU to decide, or at the very
>> least be consulted on, according to its own values and priorities,
>> something that all mantainers appointed by GNU, myself included,
>> committed ourselves to observe, prioritize and uphold as maintainers of
>> GNU packages.  I encourage other maintainers to justify their responses
>> based on GNU's values and priorities, as they understand them.
> 
> I believe the LF has already agreed to implement the hosting entirely with 
> free software.  Naturally we should make sure that other requirements from 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.en.html such as "Does not 
> discriminate against classes of users, or against any country. (C2)" and 
> "Permits access via Tor (we consider this an important site function). 
> (C3)" are met, though I don't expect problems there.  Several criteria are 
> trivally met or inapplicable simply because they concern things that are 
> beyond the scope of this proposed hosting (for example, recommending 
> particular choices of license, or offering choices of license, is entirely 
> outside the scope of what these hosting facilities do, just as it's 
> outside the scope of what Sourceware does - those are criteria for 
> general-purpose hosting sites that anyone might add a package to).
 
The LF IT has agreed to implement hosting entirely with FOSS.

I agree completely with Joseph here that the repo criteria [1] are the relevant
criteria to apply in this case.

I'll reach out to LF IT to work through the repo criteria.

Likewise I will create documents to answer and cover some of Paul Eggert's questions.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.en.html