Distro Transparency Index (DTI)

Detailed Evaluation

1. Governance Transparency: 0/3

• Availability of governance documents: Not Available (0 points)
• Detail of governance documents: Not Available (0 points)
• Source: Nobara Project Website
• Note: No formal governance documents found.

2. Decision Making Transparency: 1/3

• Documented decision-making process: Partial (1 point)
• Accessibility of meeting minutes: Not Available (0 points)
• Source: Nobara Project Website, Nobara Discord
• Note: Decisions seem to be made through Discord discussions, but formal processes are not clearly documented.

3. Economic Transparency: 0/4

• Publication of financial statements: Not Published (0 points)
• Detail of financial statements: Not Available (0 points)
• Note: No public financial information found.

4. Economic Accessibility: 0/4

• Access to financial reports: Not Available (0 points)
• Ease of access: Difficult (0 points)
• Note: Financial information is not publicly accessible.

5. Source Code Accessibility: 3/4

• Availability of source code: Partial (1 point)
• Ease of access to source code: Easy (2 points)
• Source: Nobara Project Website
• Note: While the project is based on Fedora and likely inherits much of its open-source nature, the specific modifications for Nobara are not clearly accessible in a centralized repository.

6. Public Roadmap Availability: 1/3

• Public roadmap: Partial (1 point)
• Detail of roadmap: Minimal (0 points)
• Source: Nobara Project Website
• Note: Limited information about future plans and releases.

7. Transparency in Code Review Processes: 1/3

• Documentation of review processes: Minimal (0 points)
• Transparency of review processes: Partial (1 point)
• Note: Limited visibility into code review processes.

8. Community Participation in Development: 2/4

• Number of active contributors: Low (0 points)
• Accessibility to development processes: Moderate (2 points)
• Source: Nobara Discord
• Note: The project appears to be primarily driven by a small team, with community discussions mainly through Discord.

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

• Centralization of decision-making power: Centralized (0 points)
• Control and balance mechanisms: Minimal (0 points)
• Influence of commercial entities on governance: Minimal (2 points)
• Note: The project appears to be primarily driven by a small team, with limited formal governance structures.

Concluding Analysis

Nobara Linux demonstrates a limited level of transparency across the evaluated areas:

Strengths:

• Based on Fedora, inheriting some of its open-source nature.
• Active community engagement through Discord.
• Minimal commercial influence on governance.

Areas for improvement:

• Formal governance documentation and transparency in decision-making processes.
• Economic transparency and accessibility of financial information.
• More detailed long-term public roadmaps.
• Clearer documentation of code review and contribution processes.
• Improved accessibility to Nobara-specific source code modifications.
• Expansion of the contributor base and formalization of community involvement.

The revised score of 47.06/100 reflects Nobara Linux's focus on technical development and user experience, but highlights significant areas for improvement in terms of transparency and formal structures. As a relatively new distribution, Nobara Linux may benefit from implementing more formal documentation of its governance, decision-making processes, and development practices. Increasing the visibility of project-specific source code and formalizing community contribution processes could also significantly improve its transparency score.