On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 15:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > I think the communication process between FESCo (and the RH side > > too for that matter) needs to be a bit more thought out. > > Packaging Committee topics are posted to: > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo And the changelog format issue is nowhere to be found... > FESCo members can post items there too. > > Otherwise, to me, the only difference between before the Packaging > Committee existed and now, is that instead of spot approving packaging > policy himself, that role is now played by the committee. Not from my point of view. Before, the guidelines only effected Extras. So FESCo discussed them, and spot would approve. Now, they effect both Core and Extras so a committee was formed. That is all well and good, but as I said before there doesn't appear to be any sort of formal process for disclosing the updates to FESCo. The FESCo reps don't have time to gather input from FESCo itself on the issues. One could argue that FESCo members should all attend the Packaging Committee meetings themselves, but I think that is counter-productive. The Packaging Committee should discuss the guidelines and come to a consensus which is then presented to FESCo/RH/Legacy/whomever. If there are no major objections, then they become official as is. I think that is reasonable. All I'm asking for is time for the reps from various parties to discuss the issues with the groups the represent and a mechanism for them to be able to do that. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
