On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 23:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Max Spevack wrote: > > (1) Features, led by John Poelstra. This group tracks feature > > development (from spec through code) for various things that we'd like > > to have end up in Fedora at some point. > > I think this proposal is solid but I would like to have a clarification > here. Is John Poelstra going to arbitrate features or just going to keep > track of them? If he is keeping track of these features how do they end > up in the features list? Are they going to get proposed and added by > various teams and SIG's within Fedora or they driven by a higher level > group? A combination of both of these? I think John (as the "head/chair" of the feature group) is doing a lot of tracking -- but also probably making sure that features that are put on the list actually meet the criteria for being a release feature. Things like "someone is committed to doing the work" and "the work is reasonable based on the schedule" > If there are disputes regarding the features being proposed or the > schedule between releases (A strict schedule would avoid this problem > unless we want to change it for a particular release as a exception), is > it the responsibility of FESCo or Fedora Board to arbitrate on them? FESCo generally Jeremy _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
