Submission Procedure (was: obsoleted vs acinclude tool)

[Peter Simons]

I have taken the liberty of moving this comment from Guido into a new
thread:

 > what about two phasis when being _within_ the main categories of
 > the ac-archive - like "proposed" and "stable" as we know from other
 > standardization processes.

The problem is that I am completely unsure how this acceptance process
should work at all. Braded had a few good proposals in the mail I
quoted, which we should consider. I'll try to write them up in "policy
style" below:

 (1) A macro is submitted.

 (2) We verify that it fulfills the very basic requirements concerning
     formatting, naming policy, etc. If it does not, one of us has to
     get back to the author to have it fixed.

 (3) It goes into a "Candidate" or "Proposals" category, but is not
     distributed in the release archive, but only on the web page.

 (4) An announcement of the new arrival is posted an the web site,
     posted to the this mailing list, and -- possibly -- posted on the
     Autoconf mailing list as well. (If they don't mind.)

     Everybody is invited to comment on the macros quality --
     positively or negatively. Every comment must _cleary_ state
     either:

         I vote for the inclusion of the macro.
         I vote against the inclusion of the macro.

     Votes without any reasoning (even a trivial one) don't count.

 (5) After a four week period, the votes are counted and the macro is
     accepted or not (at least _one_ vote, simple majority suffices).

Whatdoyouthink?

Peter