Wikidata:Property proposal/FLOSS development policy URL
FLOSS development policy URL edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | URL for free/libre open source development policy or guideline of an entity |
|---|---|
| Represents | free and open-source software (Q506883) |
| Data type | URL |
| Domain | instance of/subclass of organization (Q43229) |
| Example 1 | Swedish Social Insurance Agency (Q3372219) → [1] |
| Example 2 | Association for Progressive Communications (Q743611) → [2] |
| Example 3 | Italy (Q38) → [3] |
| Planned use | add all policies I can find to items |
| See also | Wikidata:Property proposal/FLOSS usage policy URL |
Motivation edit
FLOSS policies regarding development are found in at government agencies and non-profit organizations (see examples above) So9q (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- There seems to be an error in the timestamp. Should be August 1, not Feburary 2. --- Jura 04:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics/FLOSS Ainali (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion edit
- @ainali:--So9q (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Support Ainali (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Question could this be good also for code of conducts / code style / this kind of stuff? Thank you for this proposal! --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think so, since those are usually per project rather than per organisation. And it's also possible to have a code of conduct for a project that is not FLOSS, so it doesn't make sense mixing them, since it will be very hard to know what you get when you do a query. Ainali (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I generally Support this, but I was a bit confused by the inclusion of "development" in the proposed name. Like Valerio Bozzolan, my first thought was about contribution guidelines that apply to the development process itself, rather than policies about using FLOSS principles in software development. I'd suggest dropping "development" from the title and name it simply "FLOSS policy URL", which IMO is clearer. --Waldyrious (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, this is intentionally for the development, there is already free/libre open source software usage policy URL (P9771) for recording the policy of how organizations intend to use FLOSS. Ainali (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'm telling something already known but, for example, the Italian one [4] is our law covering first of all adoption and usage, then development. I don't know if I'm able to clarify more the difference semantically, but at the moment the two properties could be easily misunderstood without more ideas. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- For Italy, and many other organizations, the same URL would be used for both properties. But for many, only one of them would be used. And it matters quite a lot if you have one but not the other. Ainali (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK User:Ainali. Uhm. Hey. What about "FLOSS governance policy"? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Valerio Bozzolan I don't have anything against that as a separate property, in fact I would support it, but it doesn't replace the need for this one. Please make a new proposal and feel free to ping me. Ainali (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Ainali I just thought that maybe "FLOSS governance policy" could be a better title for this property since this document I've seen above talks about governance, and governance is perhaps semantically clearer, leading back to a theme of politics rather than just typing lines of code, in order to try to exclude code of conducts / code style ecc. (Sorry if I'm repeating myself, I was sure I misspoke). --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Valerio Bozzolan To me, who work with open source all day long, it is not clearer at all. Governance is something completely different and more hands-on in a FLOSS project than the overarching policy for if you should develop FLOSS software at all in an institution. If I were to compare it with Wikimedia, the development policy would be to the governance like how our m:Vision relates to Wikipedia:Five pillars (Q4656249). Ainali (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- OKi doki. So... dunno if... "organization FLOSS policy"? "organization FLOSS development policy"? I have concluded the ideas ihih --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- "organization FLOSS development policy URL" works, and if we don't use it, it should probably be in the alias. Ainali (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- OKi doki. So... dunno if... "organization FLOSS policy"? "organization FLOSS development policy"? I have concluded the ideas ihih --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Valerio Bozzolan To me, who work with open source all day long, it is not clearer at all. Governance is something completely different and more hands-on in a FLOSS project than the overarching policy for if you should develop FLOSS software at all in an institution. If I were to compare it with Wikimedia, the development policy would be to the governance like how our m:Vision relates to Wikipedia:Five pillars (Q4656249). Ainali (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Ainali I just thought that maybe "FLOSS governance policy" could be a better title for this property since this document I've seen above talks about governance, and governance is perhaps semantically clearer, leading back to a theme of politics rather than just typing lines of code, in order to try to exclude code of conducts / code style ecc. (Sorry if I'm repeating myself, I was sure I misspoke). --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Valerio Bozzolan I don't have anything against that as a separate property, in fact I would support it, but it doesn't replace the need for this one. Please make a new proposal and feel free to ping me. Ainali (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK User:Ainali. Uhm. Hey. What about "FLOSS governance policy"? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- For Italy, and many other organizations, the same URL would be used for both properties. But for many, only one of them would be used. And it matters quite a lot if you have one but not the other. Ainali (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'm telling something already known but, for example, the Italian one [4] is our law covering first of all adoption and usage, then development. I don't know if I'm able to clarify more the difference semantically, but at the moment the two properties could be easily misunderstood without more ideas. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, this is intentionally for the development, there is already free/libre open source software usage policy URL (P9771) for recording the policy of how organizations intend to use FLOSS. Ainali (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @So9q, Ainali, Jura1, Valerio Bozzolan, Waldyrious:
Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics/FLOSS 
Done as free/libre open source software development policy URL (P9904). UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
