https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html Is there anyone who is interested in assisting with this? If you are, please join the mailing list and mention so there: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/repo-criteria-discuss Some of the main work is to go through the criteria and compare/test the site and document what is found. I could potentially also do some work to increase its rating before the evaluation is complete. -- Ian Kelling | Senior Systems Administrator, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: B125 F60B 7B28 7FF6 A2B7 DF8F 170A F0E2 9542 95DF https://fsf.org | https://gnu.org
Just glanced over the criteria. C: As far as I can tell, we meet all of the criteria for C, except C2, which I may not be legally allowed to fulfill (I have to comply with US trade sanctions). B: We don't have LibreJS indicators for the one or two scripts on the site, but the scripts are optional anyway. Other criteria fulfilled. A: A2, A4, A8: NACK, do not intend to fix. These are more about "making GNU happy" than "ethical repository criteria". A4: NACK, but I might change my mind at some point. A9: I don't really think this is necessary, a single LICENSE or COPYING file should be suitable. I would be interested in adding a feature which warns repo owners if their repo is missing one of these files. A+: A+1: NACK, we need to do this for security reasons. One example is that we log every log in and log out attempt and monitor it for unusually high activity, which alerts us if someone is attempting to access another user's account. Old information is deleted periodically. A+5: This is a blocker for the production cycle, but isn't done. The rest of these criteria are laudable but not currently on the roadmap, help here would be welcome. In short, I think we could easily qualify for a B rating, but the A rating is kind of GNU biased and I'm not really into it.