On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 08/17/2010 01:36 AM, seth vidal wrote: > > equivalent footing? One org owns all the infrastructure and big amount > > of the devels on @core. > > > > It's not equivalent. > > It is not equivalent now but there is really no need for one vendor to > own all the infrastructure. I was talking about Governance here and not > infrastructure anyway. > FWIW, one vendor doesn't "own" all the infrastructure. We're a pretty diverse group as far as infrastructure goes with several sponsors. It's something we've been working on for some time. Let me rephrase your question though. You're not just asking more people to step in but also remember you're asking for someone else to take on risk as well. Right now Red Hat is completely liable for Fedora and what happens in it. It's not like $LARGE_VENDOR is beating down our door looking to give large sums of money in infrastructure, legal advice, personnel, etc. What you're discussing isn't even worth talking about until someone else steps up and offers that. I don't see that happening any time soon. -Mike _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
