Mark Martin wrote: > > I was debating bringing a case to propose new stability communication > norms for particular classifications of projects (i.e. Java > libraries). Rather than debate the specifics of that case at this > moment, I'd like to determine if this would be prudent procedurally. > I know the LSARC intends to use trove as a precedent setting case, but > I suspect a longer discussion is warranted to solve the generic > problem of: > > FOSS ports that have no stability expectations expressed in any form > (or do, but with a different taxonomy) > FOSS ports that have different user expectations for documentation. > (i.e. man vs. Xdoc) > > I'm basing this concern on the fact that there was no quorum during > the vote (does this matter?), and it still seems like there's a bit of > uncertainty in the opinion. The vote was just a straw poll to tell which was the majority and which was the minority for purposes of drafting the opinion - it was not intended to be binding. > > Should I attempt this, or should I let the Trove case ride? I think we still have some basic issues that I had thought were not in question such as:
Do projects even need to convey the ARC interface classification to their users? (I say yes, but there seems to be debate) If that is resolved, then we could pursue what you suggest, and describe *how* to convey that interface classification for each class of project. I think we would welcome your efforts in doing that. -- mark
