fesco, fpc and epel relationships (was: How to handle packaging issues for EPEL?)

[Axel Thimm]

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 03:38:25PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> To avoid that I'd like to ask FESCo and the Board to clarify the
> position of the Packaging Committee and its relation to EPEL as well as
> what Packaging rules get used for EPEL.

I think setting up mandates and formal relationships between the
various groups is important. Given that currently most FPC members are
not really into RHEL, and that in the past whenever a RHEL rule was
being discussed it was (IMHO wrongly) most often simply dumped,
because "we are Fedora, not RHEL" the FPC needs to know its current
responsibilities.

It is also important to really have an EPEL entity. Various questions
that are being raised are either resolved due to 100% consensus or not
at all ATM. The fedora-usermgmt and repotag topics are two rather less
important issues that after a given timeframe could have been simply
voted on by EPEL, but since it is not recognizing itself yet as a
voting body it is floating rather helpless in the floods of infinite
threads trying to outsource these questions to Fedora, fesco, fpc
etc.

There is no doubt that some parts need to be controlled by fesco and
higher organs, but it could be like for the packaging group: the FPC
makes some decisions and fesco ratifies them. Why not copy the same
model to the EPEL and fesco relationship? An EPEL SIG or call it
board/committee/anything is formed that votes on proposals and
forwards them to fesco to ratify.

If you're looking for a short acronym I'd recommend FEG/FEC (Fedora
Enterprise Group/Committee).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070319/7c0c6ea6/attachment.bin