Axel Thimm schrieb: > 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 No, in the past the FPC was afaics kind of on the same level as Core and Extras Committee's, just that the latter had a kind of veto right. > and was well known to everyone > involved. How does that fit in this discussion? [...] It was you that started with sub-thread with "I think setting up mandates and formal relationships between the various groups is important." I this way wanted to agree with that and that's why I wrote: >> 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... Cu thl _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
