On Tuesday 08 August 2006 16:50, Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My $0.02: > > I wouldn't have SIGs report necessarily to any Project. If an existing > project chooses to kick out a new SIG, fine. If someone wants to align a > SIG to a Project, fine. But if a SIG wants to sprout in the desert, doing > their own work in a little corner of the wiki, then that should be fine, > too. > I generally agree, but we must give a process for such SIGs to follow to get the help and review they need. That should be trivial. As a base policy, I'm happy with what this thread has produced. Paul, do feel free to make the necessary edits. Once that's hammered out, we can start talking about the finer details, such as naming conventions. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64@xxxxxxxxx http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ --
Attachment:
pgpV1GDtcHMob.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
