On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:13:06PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Axel Thimm schrieb: > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:46:31AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > >> On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 17:44 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > >>>> I don't see why the FPC can't do "EPEL" specific guidelines where > >>>> relevant. > >>> Neither do I, but we need the authority and commitment. > >> No one has said that FPC doesn't have the authority. > >> EPEL is a Fedora project. > >> Thus, I hereby deem that FPC has the authority. > >> As to the commitment, I have it. I can only speak for myself on such > >> matters. > > Thanks spot. > > > Same here, so let's formalize it at tomorrow's IRC meeting (the > > commitment) and the authority is asserted until the board says > > otherwise. > > Just to clarify: FESCo is the Committee above FPC (and below the Board) > afaics; see > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2007-January/msg00157.html > > That scheme was ACKed by the board IIRC, too. I thought that was always the case and was well known to everyone involved. How does that fit in this discussion? Did anything of the above imply that the FPC is trying to get above FESCO? ;=) > We really need to put this stuff (which committee is located where in > the game and what is each Committee responsible for) into the wiki > somewhere... -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpRzZbcCTkYT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
