On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:26:48 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 04/11/2014 04:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > >> = Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by > >> default = > >> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default > >> > > >> >Change owner(s): quickbooks<quickbooks.office@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> >The securetty file is empty by default > >> > > >> >There's on-going discussion for this Change on the devel list. > >> >https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/197344.html > > Fedora Base Working Group discussed this Change on today's meeting > > (2014-04-11) and tends to support counter proposal to remove > > securetty entirely from the default PAM configuration (not from > > distribution) as discussed in the thread mentioned above. Base WG > > would like to ask FESCo to weight it as part of decision making > > (once this change hits FESCo meeting). > > Just so it's clear the WG's have now been granted weight in power to > influence FESCo processes and decision distribution wide, more so > then non product specific contributors and participants hence forcing > contributors to seek their approval and accepted as well FESCo. I'm sure I will regret asking, but: You are coming to this conclusion how exactly? The above reads to me like the BaseWG discussed it, decided they liked some plan and would like FESCo to weight as they see fit that information. I personally also like that idea, so if I said: I thought about this change and decided that I would prefer to remove sercuretty entirely. I'd like to ask FESCo to weight that in it's decision making. Does that mean I have been granted more weight to influence FESCo ? 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
