Distro Transparency Index (DTI)

Detailed Evaluation

1. Governance Transparency: 0/3

• Availability of governance documents: Partial (0 points)
• Detail of governance documents: Minimal (0 points)
• Source: antiX Website – no official governance documentation available.

2. Decision Making Transparency: 0/3

• Documented decision-making process: Partial (0 points)
• Accessibility of meeting minutes: Not available (0 points)
• Source: antiX Forum – no formal documentation found.

3. Economic Transparency: 0/4

• Publication of financial statements: Not published (0 points)
• Detail of financial statements: Minimal (0 points)

4. Economic Accessibility: 0/4

• Access to financial reports: Not available (0 points)
• Ease of access: Difficult (0 points)

5. Source Code Accessibility: 4/4

• Availability of source code: Public (2 points)
• Ease of access to source code: Easy (2 points)
• Source: antiX GitHub – repositories are public and accessible.

6. Public Roadmap Availability: 0/3

• Public roadmap: Partial (0 points)
• Detail of roadmap: Minimal (0 points)
• Source: antiX News – no formal long-term roadmap.

7. Transparency in Code Review Processes: 1/3

• Documentation of review processes: Partial (0 points)
• Transparency of review processes: Moderate (1 point)
• Note: Some code discussion is visible in forums and GitHub, but not structured.

8. Community Participation in Development: 2/4

• Number of active contributors: Moderate (1 point)
• Accessibility to development processes: Moderate (1 point)
• Source: antiX Forum – participation encouraged but not formally outlined.

9. Impact of Governance Structure on Transparency: 3/6

• Centralization of decision-making power: Partially centralized (1 point)
• Control and balance mechanisms: Weak (0 points)
• Influence of commercial entities: Minimal (2 points)

Final Score: 29.41/100

Concluding Analysis

antiX demonstrates varying levels of transparency and accessibility across the evaluated areas.

• Excellent accessibility of source code.
• Minimal commercial influence on governance.
• Moderate community participation in development.

• Formal governance documentation and decision-making transparency.
• Economic transparency and accessibility of financial information.
• Development of a public roadmap and more structured code review processes.
• Establishment of formal control and balance mechanisms in governance.

The score of 29.41/100 reflects antiX's limited formal transparency structures. While antiX performs well in source code accessibility and maintains a community-driven approach, there are significant areas for improvement across most evaluation criteria.

antiX, as a lightweight, systemd-free distribution with a strong ideological position, may prioritize technical and usability goals over structured governance. Nonetheless, implementing transparent practices would strengthen its standing and trust within the open-source ecosystem.