Would probably get more feedback if there was some simple scripts included which conducted and prepared a folder with all the logs for you.
Right now it looks like quite a bit of manual work, which could easily be cut down by providing a simple shell script. It doesn't even have to get you all the way (clone repo, get correct vendor+board, etc), but at least provide you with all the logfiles, consistently named. The readme could then guide you to what blanks you need to fill in yourself in the end.
Hopefully the currently half-baked state of this otherwise good initiative doesn't cause too many people who could have contributed to bail out.
The new storage rule tries to be "deterministic".
Take a common case scenario like with Ubuntu 14.04. Make screenshots of every step or copy every command you use in the terminal. Then you might get response.
Please just write a tool that does the set of tests, displays results and optionally submits them.
Then distributions could package it, and people could run it.
The way it needs to be done right now implies too much effort and few people are going to bother.
The introduction is missing that coreboot (https://www.coreboot.org/) exists.
Suggestion: Make it easier to contribute. I have no idea how to get fwts to give me the files shown for the example. Why not add a script that calls fwts the right way and formats the output as needed, and maybe uploads the result to somewhere?
The new storage rule tries to be "deterministic".
I'll had some explanations.
It's a great idea to create this repository of information, but putting it in GitHib's proprietary silo is a turnoff to some potential contributors. It isn't wrong to use GitHub, it's just better to make GitLab the default choice for FOSS (and especially crowd-sourced!) projects.
Either way good luck with it, I like the idea and as I'm already running Ubuntu I may try the PPA and see if I can generate some useful data to contribute.
At Packet, we've been working to support CoreOS and their Distributed Trusted Computing (https://tectonic.com/trusted-computing/) for our on-demand bare metal product. This relies on UEFI vs traditional BIOS. Reading up on this I've certainly learned a ton! A good background article I read was https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/01/25/uefi-boot-how-does-...
Definitely recommended for someone coming from the legacy BIOS boot background, expecting UEFI to be the same. (Hint: It isn't)
Basically while legacy booting has too many black boxes and black magic (from an end-user perspective) to be practical to work with, UEFI is actually inspectable and debuggable. If something fails, you can figure out why.
Best of all: Creating live USBs/CDs/whatever no longer requires special tools. Just copy the everything, including the EFI folder, and its automatically bootable.
UEFI is awesome.