On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Delegating that power isn't really a possibility. I think, the CWG can > make a recommendation in such situations with the expectation that the > board would generally take it and just rubber stamp it but the board can > ask for clarifications or override if necessary. Similar to FPC and FESCo. The Board very specifically attempts to not involve itself in the matters of FPC or FESCo. In my time on the Board, I can't recall a single instance of "OMG, this packaging guideline has got to go!", or "FESCo didn't accept feature X, Board please help!". Note that I said in my first mail (which some folks seem not to have read) that while people assume that the CWG is an appointed body (true today), they have completed (after this gets accepted with whatever modifications are deemed appropriate) the very limited set of tasks they were founded to do. As Kevin mentioned, the existence of, and if it continues to exist, the composition and selection mechanism of, the CWG is entirely open for debate. I personally question the need for the existence of it going forward, but I think that's a topic for another thread. For this one, lets concentrate on the documents that were produced. _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
