On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 07:20 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 18.04.2007 01:33, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > * The guidelines contained a few references to fedora-extras-list; > > these have been altered to point to fedora-devel-list instead. > > We went ahead and made the change because extras-list is gone, but > > FESCO should ack these changes. > > Well, some people accuse me of formalizing everything to much and > putting to much government structures into Fedora (they might have a > point, but that's another discussion). But reading the above I'm > starting myself to wonder: does FESCo really want and have to look at > such issue like adjusting references to fedora-extras-list? Sending the > adjustments that are going to be made to the list (where FESCo members > as well as ordinary packagers can jump in if they don't like something) > and discussing them in FPC IMHO should be more than enough I'd say. I'm in agreement with Thorsten on this. I think issues like this don't need FESCo's ack. /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
