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: MX Linux About – no comprehensive 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: MX Linux 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: MX Linux GitHub – repositories are public and accessible.

6. Public Roadmap Availability: 0/3

• Public roadmap: Partial (0 points)
• Detail of roadmap: Minimal (0 points)
• Source: MX Linux 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 review 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: MX Linux GitHub Contributors – participation encouraged but not deeply formalized.

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

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

Final Score: 32.35/100

Concluding Analysis

MX Linux 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.
• Collaborative nature involving the MEPIS and antiX communities.

• Formal governance documentation and decision-making transparency.
• Economic transparency and accessibility of financial information.
• Development of a public long-term roadmap.
• More structured and transparent code review processes.
• Clearer documentation of development processes to boost community engagement.

The score of 32.35/100 reflects MX Linux's limited formal transparency structures. While it performs well in source code accessibility and benefits from a collaborative structure, formal documentation and financial transparency are needed to reach higher transparency standards.

As a practical, user-focused project combining efforts from MEPIS and antiX, MX Linux likely prioritizes functionality and ease of use over formal governance. Nonetheless, strengthening transparency would enhance its credibility in the open-source landscape.