On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:36:06PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > I don't want to be negative here, nor show disrepect to FESCo members, > > but I don't think being FESCo members should qualify here. A FESCo member > > could be there to represent something and not because he has great > > technical ability to fix packages. > > Well, I think all FESCo members normally should have a "technical > ability to fix packages". Maybe one time there will be someone in FESCo > that might not have it, but a FESCo member should be able to know about > that and leave such work to others. And otherwise yell on the > mailinglists ;) Errors get made by everyone and can be fixed. That is true for all the fedora contributors. I can't see why FESCo members should be treated specially. > > As a side note aren't the current > > FESCo members all sponsor? > > All FESCo members are sponsors these days. Ok, so it is redundant with the other condition today, and if someday a FESCo member isn't qualified as an experienced packager as per the other conditions, I don't think being in FESCo would make him experienced. FESCo members are elected, so they may not be experienced packagers, but something like representatives - although this is more a theoretical possibility, given how the community works. It is not very important, however since in general FESCo members will be sponsors or relevant SIG members, and so listing them separately don't hurt either. -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
