I could be wrong about the process being automated.
However, from the elpa git repository, the externals-list file says
;; List of packages that are maintained externally.
;; The list is made of elements of the form (NAME KIND URL OPTS...).
and that list contains the following -
So copies of the code are hosted in GNU ELPA, but the master code is hosted and maintained on github for the above packages. So while we can spin it in many ways, code with copyright assigned to the FSF is maintained (developed, bug fixed etc) on github. Furthermore, many of the packages from the above list I looked at are actively managing issues using Github's web interface. Finally, when you look at some of these packages in the package listing and select the package to view its info, the homepage for the package is listed as github.
I don't have an issue with this, but it does seem inconsistent to argue github does not comply with FSF philosophy and guidelines while at the same time using it to maintain code which the FSF holds the copyright for and to have references to github as the homepage for the package. To argue this is all OK because the packages are delivered from a GNU ELPA repository really just feels like we are playing with semantics. It feels a bit like saying "While our shoes are made by children in a 3rd world sweat shop, we only sell them in outlets which are run in an ethical manner."
--
Tim Cross