On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 02:42 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > 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. For those of you not watching the page, I did some editing tonight on this. I am using the "SIG" designation for now. If people could give some comments or +/-1 that would be great. I'm subscribed to the page, so if you want to add comments in it, go right ahead. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
