Dear Open Source Developers: It's OK Not to Embargo
Comments on “Dear Open Source Developers: It's OK Not to Embargo”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
Curl has adopted a policy sending low and medium severity vulnerability reports to its public issue tracker rather than handling them under private embargo. The author argues that embargoes are exhausting for volunteer maintainers facing hundreds of reports daily, and that other open source projects should consider similar policies to…
Why it ranked
No. 69 of 155 with a score of 0.60. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.79) and practical relevance (0.74), lowest on substantiated (0.37).
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Opinion piece on vulnerability disclosure policy, citing curl's change to public reporting for low/medium issues. Relevant to security and OSS maintainers; argument is persuasive but largely unquantified, with speculative claims about attacker behavior.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- Timely, relevant security-process argument centered on Curl’s disclosure policy, with useful operational implications for maintainers. It is mostly experience-based opinion, lightly evidenced, and offers limited technical detail or reproducible analysis.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.60total under rubric v2.2
- Significance0.56
- Reader interest0.71
- Audience breadth0.69
- Practical relevance0.74
- Substantiated0.37
- Technical depth0.44
- New information0.79
- Counts against: Promotional0.06
- Counts against: Overclaim0.33
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.62 | 0.45 | 0.62 | 0.56 | 0.17 | +0.24 | +0.135 |
| Reader interest | 0.63 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 0.71 | 0.15 | +0.26 | +0.185 |
| Audience breadth | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.03 | +0.13 | +0.090 |
| Practical relevance | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.74 | 0.10 | +0.22 | +0.163 |
| Substantiated | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.48 | 0.37 | 0.19 | +0.05 | +0.019 |
| Technical depth | 0.53 | 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.23 | +0.05 | +0.022 |
| New information | 0.90 | 0.55 | 0.93 | 0.79 | 0.38 | +0.05 | +0.040 |
| Promotional | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.07 | −0.19 | −0.011 |
| Overclaim | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.33 | 0.05 | −0.11 | −0.036 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.605 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.605 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-28/69/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-28/69.svg" alt="Ranked #69 on Rubric, 28 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 4 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 28 Oct 2026, 06:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.