On 04/11/2018 01:04 PM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > I failed to clarify that the FAS group really just conveys merge rights. > > Do people think we need an "interested parties" FAS and a separate > "mergers FAS". This would really mean cleaning up at least one more of > the at least 3 docs FAS groups that exist :D > No, I think it's easier to have fewer groups. It might help to make the existing group's purpose more clear by editing the description / join criteria inside of FAS. I'm not sure if community / sub-project docs fit into the scope of needing merge rights to assist. Is this correct? -- Cheers, Justin W. Flory jflory7@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ docs mailing list -- docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to docs-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
