On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:01:47AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:25:18 -0500 > > James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> ...so this seems it's all up in the air, right? Is there any reason we > >> can't/shouldn't wait for next week, given that it isn't approved? > > > > Well, looking at it sooner rather than later might be nice for the > > feature owners. I asked them to not do anything until things are all > > set for scope. > > > >> > notting voted on the fesco ticket in such a way that it's unclear > >> > whether he was +1 or -1 to the feature as written. > >> > >> Would it pass with +5/-4 ? > > > > Yes. FESCo uses simple majority. > > > >> > If notting can reply before the FPC meeting, I've asked nirik to > >> > open up an FPC ticket for whether we'll reject that as written as > >> > we did in the preliminary look. > >> > > >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove > >> > >> Also ... if FESCO passes it as-is ... what would we reject? Just the > >> sbin changes? Can we do that? > > > > I'd rather avoid the 'who can override who' discussion. ;) > > > > Speaking for myself (a member of fesco) but not fesco, I would really > > like to hear from FPC those parts that they feel are not in Fedora's > > best interests. FESCo empowered the FPC to handle those issues, so > > IMHO, we should let FPC review and let us know what parts we should > > drop from the scope or re-work. > > > > I would hope that FESCo would see those concerns and ask the feature > > owners to adjust their feature to match. > > I may or may not make the meeting due to $_DAYJOB. > Looks like the last vote for the fesco ticket has not happened. So we don't have a large outstanding ticket to take care of. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpJ9iRNAtpjY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
