James Carlson wrote: > Garrett D'Amore writes: > >> So, now my question for PSARC is, if someone (say me, or Philip) wanted >> to start up a case to make this a new requirement going forward (and >> presumably we could allow for drivers to waive the requirement, but they >> should need to be justified) wanted to sponsor a case, does this fall >> under the realm of what would be called a fasttrack? >> >> Such a proposal would itself be very light weight, but I'm not at all >> convinced it would be non-controversial enough to qualify for less than >> a full case. If nothing else, it gives PSARC a chance to express a >> stronger opinion. >> > > If it's the commonly-held opinion of those who work on drivers, then I > don't think it should face many problems. If you've discussed it in > the appropriate group first, then I see no problem with using a > fast-track to establish the new ARC-wide rule. > 99% true (IMHO)
The trouble is that only one ARC sees fast-tracks. Having done this myself, I'd suggest cc: the other ARCs and start with a *short* paragraph explaining why they are seeing it. I suspect nobody other than PSARC cares, but other ARCs might get pissy if excluded. (Other minor variations exist, but the *need* is that all ARCs get notified and a chance to comment (if needed)). - jek3
