On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:52:22PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi said the following on 08/16/2010 07:06 PM Pacific Time: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:02:45PM -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > >> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> > >>> Poelcat was asking for examples where the Board interfered with things > >>> that were rightly in fesco's sphere of influence. > >> > >> This got me thinking: > >> > >> Let's forget the past for the moment, and worry about the present. How > >> well articulated is FESCo's *current* spheres of influence? > >> > >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering_Steering_Committee > >> > >> "FESCo handles the process of accepting new features, the acceptance of > >> new packaging sponsors, Special Interest Groups (SIGs) and SIG > >> Oversight, the packaging process, handling and enforcement of maintainer > >> issues and other technical matters related to the distribution and its > >> construction." > >> > >> How good is this description? > >> > > So... if we go with this... FESCo seems to fit poelcat's view that it's > > middle management. FESCo isn't expected to be innovative here. They're > > expected to take care that the routines of creating the distribution are > > there and no wheels come off in the process. So how good is that > > This is not my view. This is not what I think. It isn't helpful to the > discussion. > Sorry -- I was speaking right after reading this old thread: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2007-June/003324.html So as to erase that old memory from my head, how has your view of FESCo changed? What do you presently think of it as? -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpjVTy1i9f4h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
