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: Linux Lite Website – no official governance documentation available.

2. Decision Making Transparency: 0/3

• Documented decision-making process: No (0 points)
• Accessibility of meeting minutes: Not available (0 points)
• Source: Linux Lite 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: 2/4

• Availability of source code: Partial (1 point)
• Ease of access to source code: Moderate (1 point)
• Source: Linux Lite GitHub – some components available, not comprehensive.

6. Public Roadmap Availability: 0/3

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

7. Transparency in Code Review Processes: 0/3

• Documentation of review processes: No (0 points)
• Transparency of review processes: Low (0 points)

8. Community Participation in Development: 1/4

• Number of active contributors: Low (0 points)
• Accessibility to development processes: Moderate (1 point)
• Source: Linux Lite GitHub – limited but encouraged via forums.

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: 14.71/100

Concluding Analysis

Linux Lite demonstrates limited transparency and accessibility across most of the evaluated areas.

• Some accessibility of source code, though limited.
• Minimal commercial influence on governance.
• Community participation encouraged through forums.

• Formal governance documentation and decision-making transparency.
• Economic transparency and accessibility of financial information.
• Improved source code accessibility and documentation.
• Development of a public roadmap and structured code review process.
• Increased community participation and clearer development process documentation.
• Formal control and balance mechanisms in governance.

The score of 14.71/100 reflects Linux Lite's limited formal transparency structures. While the project has a community-driven spirit and minimal commercial involvement, significant improvements are needed in governance, economics, and technical transparency.

As a distribution aimed at new users transitioning from Windows, Linux Lite understandably focuses on simplicity and user experience. However, greater attention to open governance would enhance trust and long-term sustainability.