doc: Clarify the Repository lifecycle

[FeynmanZhou]

fix #36

[TheFoxAtWork]

Looks good, please make sure your governance outlines a supermajority and is linked here.

[SteveLasker]

Having the process outlined is goodness. Archiving a repo that's been dormant may not mean the project isn't useful for others to consume as reference. It may just be stable and doesn't need additional changes. In this case, archiving can indicate it's stable, and not taking additional changes, because there aren't any maintainers, or the project is simply stable.

I'd also suggest adding text that a repo must have at least 30 days notice to its maintainers before archival is completed.

Deleting a project is far more destructive and removes content that others may need. I'd suggest we clarify under what circumstances a project would be deleted, vs. archived.

[yizha1]

Overall looks good. Just one comment.

[FeynmanZhou]

Having the process outlined is goodness. Archiving a repo that's been dormant may not mean the project isn't useful for others to consume as reference. It may just be stable and doesn't need additional changes. In this case, archiving can indicate it's stable, and not taking additional changes, because there aren't any maintainers, or the project is simply stable.

I'd also suggest adding text that a repo must have at least 30 days notice to its maintainers before archival is completed.

Deleting a project is far more destructive and removes content that others may need. I'd suggest we clarify under what circumstances a project would be deleted, vs. archived.

Thanks @SteveLasker for the suggestions. I added a paragraph about the archival notice and removed the "Removal" section according to your inputs above.

[priteshbandi]

LGTM

[yizha1]

Thanks @FeynmanZhou

[shizhMSFT]

What about deleting, renaming, and transferring out a repository?

[FeynmanZhou]

What about deleting, renaming, and transferring out a repository?

@shizhMSFT I added a section for Renaming. Deleting and transferring out a repository are not common cases so we could consider adding them in the future. Keep the content as minimum viable would be easier to review.

[shizhMSFT]

LGTM

[yizha1]

Thanks @FeynmanZhou LGTM

[FeynmanZhou]

/cc @notaryproject/notaryproject-governance-maintainers to help review this PR.

[priteshbandi]

LGTM