Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 04/18/2012 06:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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.

It's a big if for any secondary to meet such criteria.

> 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.

While I'm glad you've taken the time to watch the ARM team and form 
these opinions I'm also sad you've waited until now to share them.  Why 
haven't you troubled yourself to mail fedora-arm about this matter 
instead of bringing it up at an inappropriate time?  We're talking about 
secondary architectures in general here, not ARM.

> 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.

Volunteers welcome.

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