Re: Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 04:03 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 04/03/2012 03:10 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>>> Let's make the list exhaustive; there needs to be a path to sure
>>> success.  This means establishing a complete procedure where when
>>> an SA formally applies to become PA, acceptance means there is a
>>> definitive set of steps needed to get there.  This is one of the
>>> major reasons for developing these criteria.  Put another way:
>>> FESCo and affected groups should have the ability to review whether
>>> or not the SA has in-fact fulfilled the requirements for PA, as
>>> agreed to by all parties at the time of application.  If those
>>> requirements are deemed to have been met, promotion is automatic.
>>> There could be a deadline on application acceptance: EG, 12 months
>>> from acceptance of application to fulfillment of criteria.  This
>>> protects against criteria becoming stale.
>> This sound like the most reasonable approach.
> I actually have a pretty strong disagreement here. If we need sunset clauses,
> it means that there's really not enough interaction.
> Look at it this way - if an arch is following the process to become primary,
> but during that process actually becomes *less* viable, or for whatever
> reason farther from being reasonable as a PA, the process needs to be
> such that that's something people see and discuss. If it doesn't come up,
> it's because it's completely fallen off the deep end.
> So I'd much rather just say that an arch that's attempting to transition
> from secondary to primary needs to regularly keep FESCo and f-d-l informed
> as to the status than have something like formal sunsetting.  If they don't
> keep us up to date, they have de facto stopped trying.

I agree, anything that is going to take that length of time is still
really a secondary arch. Ultimately with a set of reasonably defined
criteria the request shouldn't really be made until the architecture
in question is fairly confident that they meet the criteria and then
there should be a relatively quick move one way or the other.
Obviously there's going to be some time regarding things like
infra/rel-eng etc eg for HW procurement if necessary but the overall
process side of it should be active.

devel mailing list

[Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Home]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel List]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

Add to Google Powered by Linux