Remember that the longer and more verbose the standard, the fewer people will read it. We need to speak as simply and concisely as possible. Try not to explain so much. Explanations go in papers and books. Standards should be mostly bullet-points, with reference to longer discussions in papers and books.
If we're going to say that "lack of an artifact should not be grounds for rejection of the scientific paper" then we can't have "Artifacts are available" in essential criteria. In fact, if lack of artifact is not grounds for rejection, then this standard shouldn't have an "essential" section - basically everything is desirable. That's why the open science supplement doesn't have any essential criteria. That said, I don't 100% agree with making openness forever optional. For example, suppose I do a questionnaire study. There are all sorts of reasons I might not be able to release the data. But what possible justification could there be for keeping the questions secret? If a questionnaire study comes in with no list of questions or pdf printout or something I think it's totally reasonable to reject the paper. How this applies to code I'm not sure.
"All these approaches have their positive and negative aspects so authors should be free to use whatever sharing technologies they feel is appropriate." - some wordsmithing is needed here. The reviewer should be allowed to say the sharing technology isn't appropriate - they just shouldn't be unreasonably picky about it.
Remember that the longer and more verbose the standard, the fewer people will read it. We need to speak as simply and concisely as possible. Try not to explain so much. Explanations go in papers and books. Standards should be mostly bullet-points, with reference to longer discussions in papers and books.
If we're going to say that "lack of an artifact should not be grounds for rejection of the scientific paper" then we can't have "Artifacts are available" in essential criteria. In fact, if lack of artifact is not grounds for rejection, then this standard shouldn't have an "essential" section - basically everything is desirable. That's why the open science supplement doesn't have any essential criteria. That said, I don't 100% agree with making openness forever optional. For example, suppose I do a questionnaire study. There are all sorts of reasons I might not be able to release the data. But what possible justification could there be for keeping the questions secret? If a questionnaire study comes in with no list of questions or pdf printout or something I think it's totally reasonable to reject the paper. How this applies to code I'm not sure.
"All these approaches have their positive and negative aspects so authors should be free to use whatever sharing technologies they feel is appropriate." - some wordsmithing is needed here. The reviewer should be allowed to say the sharing technology isn't appropriate - they just shouldn't be unreasonably picky about it.