Workstation PRD summary and next steps

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:16:49PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> So it does!  My mistake.
> Though I do hesitate to not run it past FESCo first.  They're
> intimately involved in several areas, and that is the group that the
> WG liaisons ... liaise to.  Getting a FESCo ack would probably go a
> long way with the Board.

The intention here wasn't to abdicate technical steering responsibilities,
but since a) it's a new high-level direction and b) what governance
documents I could find for the board indicate that board approval is
required for new official Fedora subprojects.

In retrospect, it might have been better to have a higher-level abstract
approved by the board and the details by FESCo. This is what happens when we
make things up as we go along. :) I don't think it would be terrible to
either have a FESCo ack first as you say, or to have the board okay the
overall plan and send it back to FESCo for details. (Not that I think FESCo
is interesteed in micromanaging, but some basic central coordination *is*
important.)

-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>