"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg@xxxxxxxxx) said: > So let's just clear this matter once and for all... > > Is the baseWG supposed to be responsible for the decisions and direction and > the length of maintenance of those 1806 components they self defined as a > part of the baseWG? In the same way that I'd expect the WS, Server, or Cloud WGs to comment on changes filed that affect their deliverables if they feel they aren't what Fedora should be doing in those areas, I'd expect the Base WG to comment on system-wide changes that affect the common base of the products if they think there may be issues. It can be discussed where the border of what the base WG might look at is, but I'm comfortable with the default PAM configuration being inside it. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
