[Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Pablo Rath <pablo at parobalth.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:51:33AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ...
>
>>  the first step *really is* to quite literally copy - verbatim - the
>> gnu devel.html page and "generify" it.
>>
>>  where it says "we recommend savannah" put instead "we recommend the
>> use of a Libre Hosting Service which has a minimum criteria of an A,
>> as defined by the FSF's Hosting Criteria".
>>
>>  where it says "we recommend mailing lists on gnu.org" put instead "we
>> recommend the use of software libre hosted mailing lists".  a later
>> revision should go into further detail as to *why* "announce",
>> "users", "dev" etc. is recommended.
>>
>>  etc. etc.
>>
>
> As it seems to me the above points are done. Thank you Luke for
> fixing my mishappened sentence.
> There is now a point for version control, mailing lists and web pages at
> the wiki (http://rhombus-tech.net/proposed_best_practices/).
> Regarding the goal of a general standard for libre projects I don't
> think it is necessary to cover the quite specific further points of the
> gnu devel.html page: "FTP", "Login accounts", "Hydra: Continuous builds and portability
> testing" and "platform-testers: Manual portability testing".

 if mentioned at all there should be some documented "upload /
download" method (upload for developers, download for users) but
nothing quite as specific as "You Must Use FTP" or even saying how to
set up FTP.  "use libre hosting service" pretty much covers what needs
to be done here.

 build-testing?  other than "if it is needed, using libre source build
and test programs so that people can duplicate the test and build
results for themselves" is *partially* covered under the terms of the
GNU GPL(s).... but *not* if people say use the Apache License.

 so... yes, my feeling is that build and test procedures *if used
and/or needed* should really be specified in a general way.


> Some questions:
> Has anyone else started to work on it (offline)?

 been too busy here

> How long shall the first draft of the standard be (e.g. 10 pages, 100 pages, as long as
> necessary)?

 short... but as long as necessary.  i don't see any reason it should
be longer than 10 pages.

> As you can see I am looking for guidance and some kind of roadmap to
> prevent working in the wrong direction.

 great!