Re: [Fedora Base Design WG] Committee FESCO approved, next steps

[Jon]

On Nov 4, 2013 12:01 PM, "Stephen Gallagher" <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  On 11/04/2013 11:07 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
>  > Hi everyone.
>  >
>  > A quick update from my side regarding the Base Design WG:
>  >
>  > - My proposed committee was approved by FESCO last Wednesday. One
>  > negative vote came from Stephen Gallagher that he would have very
>  > much preferred to have Lennart instead of Harald or Josh on the
>  > committee.
>  >
>
>  To be completely clear, I said I would have preferred having Lennart
>  on the WG. I did not state that I thought Harald or Josh should not be
>  members. That's an important distinction, I think :)
>
>  I felt strongly enough that Lennart belonged on this group that I
>  chose to cast a token vote, knowing that it would not affect the outcome.
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
> >  Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >
> >  iEYEARECAAYFAlJ34PkACgkQeiVVYja6o6MrUwCgpYhhbnQ2eFX/c4Eb8bSAbBVs
> >  fB4AoIKJyckoVozKnZyh03E0MfMzmpxy
> >  =L79V
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct 
Howdy folks.

Looking forward to getting to work on base design. Regarding the voting
members I feel we have a great group. Everyone intersted (voting or not)
should participate in our discussions. My vote will certainly be influenced
by anyone in the community willing to participate.  :-)

One thing I would like to talk about is embedded Fedora, mostly as that is
my personal area of involvement with the project.  There is not an embedded
working group, and it's my agenda to hopefully have the base design double
as embedded.  It makes sense to me in the sense that base ring-zero is sort
of the embedded core into cloud, server, or workstation. By itself base
would be suitable for the smallest deployment.

Another item I'd like to consider for the initial discussion is the release
cycle for the base design. My feeling is that base is small enough and
simple enough to allow a more frequent release, perhaps even continuously.
My guess is the other WGs will have their own ideas for how frequently they
output. So base WG would need to be the lowest common denominator in that
way. Obviouly rel-eng and qa need to represent for this topic. :-)

Thanks,
-Jon Disnard