On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:16:49PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > So it does! My mistake. > Though I do hesitate to not run it past FESCo first. They're > intimately involved in several areas, and that is the group that the > WG liaisons ... liaise to. Getting a FESCo ack would probably go a > long way with the Board. The intention here wasn't to abdicate technical steering responsibilities, but since a) it's a new high-level direction and b) what governance documents I could find for the board indicate that board approval is required for new official Fedora subprojects. In retrospect, it might have been better to have a higher-level abstract approved by the board and the details by FESCo. This is what happens when we make things up as we go along. :) I don't think it would be terrible to either have a FESCo ack first as you say, or to have the board okay the overall plan and send it back to FESCo for details. (Not that I think FESCo is interesteed in micromanaging, but some basic central coordination *is* important.) -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
