Hi, On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 03:38:25PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > To avoid that I'd like to ask FESCo and the Board to clarify the > position of the Packaging Committee and its relation to EPEL as well as > what Packaging rules get used for EPEL. I think setting up mandates and formal relationships between the various groups is important. Given that currently most FPC members are not really into RHEL, and that in the past whenever a RHEL rule was being discussed it was (IMHO wrongly) most often simply dumped, because "we are Fedora, not RHEL" the FPC needs to know its current responsibilities. It is also important to really have an EPEL entity. Various questions that are being raised are either resolved due to 100% consensus or not at all ATM. The fedora-usermgmt and repotag topics are two rather less important issues that after a given timeframe could have been simply voted on by EPEL, but since it is not recognizing itself yet as a voting body it is floating rather helpless in the floods of infinite threads trying to outsource these questions to Fedora, fesco, fpc etc. There is no doubt that some parts need to be controlled by fesco and higher organs, but it could be like for the packaging group: the FPC makes some decisions and fesco ratifies them. Why not copy the same model to the EPEL and fesco relationship? An EPEL SIG or call it board/committee/anything is formed that votes on proposals and forwards them to fesco to ratify. If you're looking for a short acronym I'd recommend FEG/FEC (Fedora Enterprise Group/Committee). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpBOj5KFJEPn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
