On 05/21/2009 08:44 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:08:58PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/21/2009 08:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering committee
for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I don't
see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but
not packaging shouldn't be a leader.
That would make sense if they were making decisions and guidance over
those groups, only I don't think they are.
FESCo has grown from being a group concerned only about packages in a
add-on repository into something much larger. FESCo is responsible for
all technical decisions in Fedora including those that affect these groups.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what technical decisions effect artwork
or translations or the management of documentation?
I cannot remember ever dealing with anything involving artwork in my entire
tenure in FESCo. Documentation is impacted from a content point of view, but
they have their own committee and aside from the Feature stuff FESCo doesn't
really have any direct impact on them. Similarly for translation.
Why, just last week! :-)
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/142
which was discussed in:
http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2009-05-15.html
I'll note that FESCo left the decision to mizmo and ianweller as
representatives of the art and website teams. But FESCo didn't say that
they didn't have jurisdiction here... FESCo assumed it had the authority
to play mediator in the dispute. This relationship seems to be pretty
close to the FESCo <=> FPC relationship where the FPC is largely
autonomous but definitely comes under the wings of FESCo.
-Toshio
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
