On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:25:11PM -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > I propose a Fedora Engineering Steering Committee, that "reports" to the > Fedora Board and that "oversees" the following sub-groups > > (1) Features, led by John Poelstra. > (2) The Theory of Packaging. > (3) The Practice of Packaging. > (4) Release Engineering, > (5) QA and release ready-ness, [...] > Things like the release schedule can work as follows: > > The Fedora Board has said "we'd like to get as close to a Halloween/May > Day release cycle as possible." > > The Features and Release Engineering teams can discuss a potential > schedule that comes close to that, and present it to the Board for an > ack. As changes are needed to that schedule, they too can be presented > to the Board for an ack. Doesn't that short-cirquit fesco out of the loop? E.g. if fesco is supposed to be overseeing those two teams it sounds like a) board decides on Halloween/May Day ETA b) fesco interacts with feature/releng teams and lays out a plan to fulfill the board's input. c) fesco presents to the board the results, e.g. whether this is possible and what the constraining parameters will be (which features will make it etc) If this is considered too much hierarchical procedure then these two teams need to be attached to the board directly. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpsjJb9OIxiV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
