On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 10:43 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 09:48 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > > I think the requirement should be membership in some (any) other group than > > cla_done. This shows a bit more interest. It also requires manual approval > > so that some prankster can't hose an election by creating a lot of dummy > > accounts. (This would most likely be detected, but would still be a > > significant annoyance to have to clean up after.) I think this category > > would include all of the people that people have been concerned about in > > this discussion. > > I think this is the best suggestion to date. Fair enough suggestion, we'll survive if that's the way we go[1]. :) Please review, edit, fix, etc. the proposals before FESCo meets and decides on this. My draft page is at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KarstenWade/FranchisementGrantProposals Brian or someone from FESCo can move it to another namespace, as you wish. - Karsten [1] There is going to be overlap in these groups. But compared to "cvsextras + qa + releng" where this thread started, it is obvious that even just Bruno's proposal brings in hundreds of people who should be voting for FESCo. accounts 6 ambassadors 222 art 21 cla_dell 2 cla_done 1349 cla_fedora 1290 cla_ibm admin 6 cla_redhat 133 cvsadmin 12 cvsdevel 14 cvsdirsec 14 cvsdocs admin 112 cvseclipse 2 cvsextras 420 cvsfedora 86 cvsfont llch 6 cvsl10n kwade 80 cvslegacy 6 distribution 3 epel_signers 2 extras_signers 7 fedorabugs 463 freemedia 2 gitbluecurve 2 gitkernel 5 -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
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
