On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 18:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 18:00 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Josh Boyer wrote: > >> > >>> At the last meeting FESCo decided they didn't feel it was necessary to > >>> review the SIGs as Features unless the Spin SIG/owner and rel-eng > >>> couldn't agree. > >>> > >>> Just sent it to rel-eng. > >> This ping-pong doesn't help. FESCo should really decide if spins are > >> features are not. Take input from rel-eng if necessary but please make a > >> decision either way. > > > > They did make a decision. They decided that they aren't Features in the > > sense that FESCo doesn't need to review them unless there is a problem > > that needs to be escalated. Just like every other group/scenario we > > have. > > > > Rel-Eng has the approval authority for Spins. They want them treated as > > Features (as does the Spins SIG last I knew), so the only thing that is > > different is the approving body. There is no ping-ponging. Rel-eng > > just wanted to make sure FESCo didn't want to be the approving body. > > Does this mean, they would be in the feature list or not? No. They are Spins, not Features. However, see below. > If not, what > is the approval process for rel-eng to consider them for approval? Basically the same as it was, with one extra step. rel-eng would like to see the Feature infrastructure used for the spins, as the Feature pages will allow better communication and planning to be done during the release cycle. Essentially, do the kickstart thing through the Spins SIG as it is now, fill out a Feature page for the spin, and send a link to rel-eng with that. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
