On 10/24/06, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:36:06PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > 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.
Just to correct the assumption of how it ended up that all FESCo
members are sponsors, it might be relevant to note that not all FESCo
members were sponsors after the last election... If memory serves,
FESCo voted to make all non-sponsor members sponsors on the basis of
their being members a couple months back. I don't think there's any
guarantee that all future FESCo's will continue to be constituted
solely by sponsors unless it either becomes a requirement to hold the
office (or consequence thereof).
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
