Distro Transparency Index (DTI)

Detailed Evaluation

1. Governance Transparency: 0/3

• Availability of governance documents: No (0 points)
• Detail of governance documents: Minimal (0 points)
• Source: ArcoLinux 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: ArcoLinux 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: ArcoLinux GitHub – repositories are public and accessible.

6. Public Roadmap Availability: 0/3

• Public roadmap: Partial (0 points)
• Detail of roadmap: Minimal (0 points)
• Source: ArcoLinux 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 review activity on GitHub and forum, but not fully structured.

8. Community Participation in Development: 2/4

• Number of active contributors: Moderate (1 point)
• Accessibility to development processes: Moderate (1 point)
• Source: GitHub and forum – community engagement present but not deeply structured.

9. Impact of Governance Structure on Transparency: 2/6

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

Final Score: 26.47/100

Concluding Analysis

ArcoLinux 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 transparency in decision-making processes.
• Economic transparency and accessibility of financial information.
• Development of a public roadmap and more structured code review processes.
• Decentralization of decision-making power and formal control mechanisms.

The score of 26.47/100 reflects ArcoLinux's limited formal transparency structures. While the project does well in code accessibility and offers educational value, formal governance and transparency could significantly improve trust and long-term sustainability.

As a project with a strong educational focus and diverse editions, ArcoLinux may prioritize user experience and learning over governance formalities. However, implementing transparent practices could further strengthen its reputation in the open-source ecosystem.