Re: Submission Procedure (was: obsoleted vs acinclude tool)

[Guido Draheim]

Peter Simons schrieb:
> 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?

No dedicated mailinglist for submissions then?

See - I do not know if I would handle macros in a staging area
the same way as per e-mail. It just lengthens the processing
since I have to look into a third place. It makes me to use
multiple tools and windows and clicks and whatever. - In
contrast I would like to see that if one maintainer ges
a macro on a private channel, it ought to be just send in
full glory to a mailing list where I can review it, and
put comments on it, and ask the original submitter to send
an updated version per e-mail. When everything looks great,
it is saved-to-disk and committed.

The only difference is with a webpage for review - but
apart from formatting there is no less with a reference
to a mailinglist archive.

Actually, the website formatting will (hopefully) distribute
the macros according to its attributes instead of an original
storage place. Resulting from it: when direct interactions of
maintainers and submitter has been done, it is saved and
marked "proposed". And.... I don't see a reason to not
redistribute it since _we_ have looked at it and decided it
is up with the rules. There might be objections from other users
later on, but that might need it to be updated, or just...
renamed. ;-) .... and there we have it again.

That made me trigger the mailinglist approach - everyone who
wishes to take part early in the review process is free to
subscribe to the submission mailinglist, and I am sure that
the core autoconf maintainers will all do so. After it has
been peered by a core group, then it is public, no extra
level needed - or what would that extra stage good for?

me still confused it seems...
-- cheers, guido