Please review the draft for September's report

[Chris Lamb]

Thanks, folks!


> On 2022-10-05, David A. Wheeler wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 2022, at 3:50 PM, Chris Lamb <chris at reproducible-builds.org> wrote:
>>> Please review the draft for September's Reproducible Builds report:
>>> 
>>>  https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2022-09/?draft
>>
>> As always, thanks! A few proposed tweaks below.
>>
>> --- David A. Wheeler
>>
>> ============
>>
>> First, an easy nit:
>>   s/David Wheeler/David A. Wheeler/g
>> if you would please. I do answer to "David" (and many other things!).
>> However, there are a ridiculous number of "David Wheelers", so I always use my initial
>> initial in written materials to reduce confusion.
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Second:
>>> David Wheeler also pointed out that there are some potential upcoming changes to the OpenSSF Best Practices badge for open source software in relation to reproducibility. Whilst the badge programme has three certification levels (“passing”, “silver” and “gold”), the “gold” level includes the criterion that “The project MUST have a reproducible build”.
>> This was merely a proposal for a change, based on some projects' requests -
>> whether or not it happens depends on feedback!
>> Indeed, based on current feedback I doubt it'll go anywhere. So I think it'd be clearer written this way:
>>> David A. Wheeler also posted a proposed change to the OpenSSF Best Practices badge for open source software in relation to reproducible builds. Whilst the badge programme has three certification levels (“passing”, “silver” and “gold”), the “gold” level includes the criterion that “The project MUST have a reproducible build”.
>> Then delete the "However," that follows it, and change "we raised" to "were raised".
>
> Done. Noticed another typo when I added that part too ...