On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Jan 25, 2008 4:56 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > How about a slight variation on the fedora LTS plan that might vastly > > reduce the needed work and let people keep running without the dangers > > of going without security fixes? What if the versions supported were > > the ones used as the base of the RHEL cuts, and the subsequent updates > > were recompiled from the CentOS source RPM's? > > Anything involving how RHEL is put together is complete and utterly > out of the control of Fedora governance. Even as a fedora board > member I have zero impact on how RHEL is put together and positioned, > so even at the board level I cannot plan to know which Fedora is > actually the base for RHEL, nor can I drive any decision making there. > I think you're talking about "given power" and I think Jesse is more talking about "expert power". We cannot make mandates to RHEL, and in that way we have no control over it. But the quality of our work often speaks for itself and goes, unaltered, into RHEL. And in that way, we certainly shape the outcome of what RHEL is. -Mike -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
