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: EndeavourOS Website
• Note: While some information is available, there's no comprehensive governance document.

2. Decision Making Transparency: 0/3

• Documented decision-making process: Partial (0 points)
• Accessibility of meeting minutes: Not Available (0 points)
• Source: EndeavourOS Forum
• Note: Decision-making processes are often discussed in forums, but not formally documented.

3. Economic Transparency: 0/4

• Publication of financial statements: Not Published (0 points)
• Detail of financial statements: Minimal (0 points)
• Note: Financial information is limited to donation options on the website.

4. Economic Accessibility: 0/4

• Access to financial reports: Not Available (0 points)
• Ease of access: Difficult (0 points)
• Note: Financial information beyond donation options is not easily obtainable.

5. Source Code Accessibility: 4/4

• Availability of source code: Public (2 points)
• Ease of access to source code: Easy (2 points)
• Source: EndeavourOS GitHub
• Note: The source code is easily accessible through GitHub and Arch repositories.

6. Development Transparency: 5/5

• Transparency of continuous development process: High (3 points)
• Accessibility to information on upcoming updates: Easy (2 points)
• Source: EndeavourOS News
• Note: Regular updates on development progress are provided through the news section and forums.

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 discussions occur in public forums, but the process is not fully transparent.

8. Community Participation in Development: 3/4

• Number of active contributors: Moderate (1 point)
• Accessibility to development processes: Easy (2 points)
• Source: EndeavourOS Community
• Note: Community participation is strongly encouraged, with active forums and contribution guidelines.

9. Impact of Governance Structure on Transparency: 4/6

• Centralization of decision-making power: Partially centralized (1 point)
• Control and balance mechanisms: Moderate (1 point)
• Influence of commercial entities on governance: Minimal (2 points)
• Note: While there's a core team, community input is valued in decision-making. Community feedback plays a role, but formal mechanisms are not clearly defined.

Concluding Analysis

EndeavourOS demonstrates varying levels of transparency and accessibility across the evaluated areas:

Strengths:

• Excellent accessibility of source code.
• High transparency in the continuous development process.
• Strong community participation and minimal commercial influence.

Areas for improvement:

• Formal governance documentation and transparency in decision-making processes.
• Economic transparency and accessibility of financial information.
• More structured and transparent code review processes.
• Establishment of formal control and balance mechanisms in governance.

The score of 47.22/100 reflects EndeavourOS's mixed approach to transparency and openness. While it performs well in areas like source code accessibility and development transparency, there are significant areas for improvement, particularly in governance documentation, economic transparency, and formalized processes.

It's important to note that EndeavourOS, as a relatively new and community-driven project, may prioritize rapid development and community engagement over formal governance structures. The project's focus on providing a user-friendly Arch-based experience may sometimes take precedence over governance formalities, which is reflected in this evaluation.