Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Matthew Garrett]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 05:34:11PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 02:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >If you manage that then I think most of the problems you're worried
> >about go away. It'll be obvious to everyone whether or not you're ready
> >to be a primary architecture at any given point. Don't worry about the
> >details. Just be part of Fedora.
> 
> That almost sounds like an argument for scrapping the promotion
> requirements document entirely. Is that what you meant?  I
> understand where you're coming from philosophically, but we're
> talking about something more concrete.  Many people who are
> interested in SA2PA promotion requirements are working on Fedora
> 24/7 and they want guidance too.  As documents go I'm all for having
> a philosophical section on what the mindset is, but it should be
> matched with applied examples.

Not really. The proposed criteria provide strong guidance. If you meet 
them all then you're probably fine. But the point isn't to be slaves to 
these criteria. It's to be active particpants in the Fedora development 
community.

Right now I don't think ARM's doing a great job of that. Your meetings 
happen on the phone and aren't minuted. I've got no insight at all into 
how your development process is progressing. At minimum you should be 
meeting in #fedora-meeting and posting minutes to arm@ - ideally you'd 
be Cc:ing them to devel at . If you're doing everything transparently then 
people are more likely to object to things at the time, whereas if you 
turn up at the beginning of F19 and say "Look, we've ticked all your 
boxes" you're liable to find people who haven't been actively following 
you and have only just realised that you're done something wrong.

> I think what you're trying to say above is "For a secondary
> architecture to become primary architecture, its team should have a
> demonstrable history of communicating with the greater Fedora
> community about what it's doing and how the greater Fedora
> community's activities are affecting it."  If that is indeed what
> you mean, please put it in the document and include some examples.
> The word "communicate" doesn't exist in the current document.
> 
> I'm open to providing what I think are reasonable examples if they
> may ultimately make it into the end document.

This document isn't supposed to be a discussion of how to be good 
members of the Fedora community. A secondary architecture should be led 
by people who already know how to do that.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org