On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 13:21:34 -0500 Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.) IMHO it doesn't make sense to bother the Board with this. These are details of a plan they approved FESCo to move forward with. Of course if they have any questions or concerns, please do bring them up, but approving each set of documents from each working group seems more something FESCo should do. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
