On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Jon Stanley <jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. If that is true then the Enforcement document should not refer to the CWG and should not state that parties can raise an issue to the CWG if they feel they were treated unfairly by other mediation attempts. That all clearly suggests the continued existence of the CWG and *its* empowerment as a mediation body. John _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
