Rex Dieter schrieb: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Bill Nottingham schrieb: >>> Under them are various subprojects - we have the infrastructure >>> project, the docs project, etc. So, what new structures do we >>> *need*? >> Hear I to disagree. I think it does not work well if we have to much >> projects on the same level if they have to interact a lot (and those two >> your porpose have to interact a lot). >> An reasons for my opinion: the communication and "who does foo" between >> the Packaging Committee and FESCo sometimes sucked > IMO, the problem(s) experienced haven't been that these projects were on > the same level, but rather that there wasn't a clear description/mandate > of authority and bounds of said projects. In this instance (FESCo/FPC), > it was unclear whose job it was to enforce packaging policy. Maybe that part of the problem. The PC afaics said that they don't want to enforce stuff. Thus FESCo sometimes hit problems, had to move them over to PC for solving them in the guidlines. The PC then had to move the issue back to FESCO to actually enforce what the PC decided. That was fine when we had Core and Extras, but soon it will be to much overhead for no real gain. CU thl _______________________________________________ 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
