Hi Josh, Ok, I posted on the FeSCO ticket, but I will also try to attend the next FeSCO meeting about the subject. I am a bit surprised FeSCO is assuming it would be their job to approve repos considering the council approved proposal clearly states that the 3rd party repos as a working group issue. Christian ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" <desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:28:21 PM > Subject: Re: Procedure for dealing with 3rd party applications > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Christian Schaller <cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Hi Workstation Working Group, > > So now that that Council finalized on the 3rd party software proposal in a > > positive way > > (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1617) > > That's the FESCo ticket. The Council ticket is: > https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/57 > > > we need to figure out the details on how we want to approach this as a > > working group. > > As mentioned in previous discussions and in the concrete proposal there > > will need to > > be some kind of procurement process here to ensure we don't drag Fedora and > > Red Hat > > into legal troubles. > > You might want to converse with FESCo as well. They are currently > coming up with text to their third party repository page so that it > doesn't conflict with the Council direction. At the moment, the draft > text[1] requires repositories to be approved by Fedora Legal and > FESCo. > > [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1617#comment:8 > > josh > -- > desktop mailing list > desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
