On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:24 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > That is lingering around for months now (see > > fab-archives) and it seems everyone has different expectations in that > > area. > > I _did_ notice your posting and was waiting for FAB's and FESCO's > voices. Their (non-) reaction to me is a strong indication for my claims > above to be true. Well, I did speak to Thorsten on IRC about it for a while on Thursday, but since I've been fairly swamped with work I haven't had time to reply to the list. Anyway, I'm not really sure if we should delay the election, since we really don't know how long it's going to take to determine the exact responsibilities of FESCo now that the merge occurred. Maybe we could have a statement on the announcement of candidates stating something to the fact the FESCo responsibilities will most likely be changing in the future. /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
