Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 04/03/2012 08:31 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> 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.

Okay, I'm relenting on automatic promotion.  Basically, Peter is right 
that communication is essential, so some guidelines on what needs to be 
there would be most helpful.  I would appreciate wider feedback on 
message ID 4F8C8416.4000602 at redhat.com from yesterday.

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc at redhat.com