inode0 (inode0@xxxxxxxxx) said: > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > == FESCo should allow non packagers to be committee members == > > > > FESCo voted 5-0 (with three abstentions) to not change the current > > requirement that FESCo nominees be part of the packager group. Discussion > > indicated that: > > > > * technical issues (FPC reports, features) are approved by FESCo > > (1) To sit on FESCo good technical chops are important. > > > * membership in packager is not a large hurdle > > (2) The requirement of being in the packager group is not a large > hurdle and proves little about a person's technical chops. > > > * there have yet to be anyone who has expressed interest in running that > > * would need this exception, even in the mail thread that spawned this > > (3) No one has yet stepped up and attempted to run for an office he or > she was not eligible to occupy. > > (1) + (2) + (3) = current policy makes sense to FESCo? More that if you have the technical chops re (1) then (2) is not a significant additional hurdle. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
