On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/19/2015 09:11 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo member I'm
strongly
>> > suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's add
to
>> > the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play an
>> > *active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the
Council
>> > or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks.
>> > Does this sound more reasonable for you?
> Sounds fantastic to me!
Does this mean you're onboard with FAmSCo elections with the proviso
that they should be actively working to make FOSCo happen?
Yes.
Was anybody else -1 on FAmSCo elections?
Not that I had seen. And to be clear, I was never -1 for FAmSCo
elections either. I was/am just very concerned that the thing that is
supposed to be replacing FAmSCo isn't making actual progress.
josh