Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Peter Jones]

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.

-- 
        Peter