fesco, fpc and epel relationships

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Mon Mar 19 17:37:09 UTC 2007



Axel Thimm schrieb:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:13:06PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Axel Thimm schrieb:
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:46:31AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 17:44 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
>>>>>> I don't see why the FPC can't do "EPEL" specific guidelines where
>>>>>> relevant.
>>>>> Neither do I, but we need the authority and commitment.
>>>> No one has said that FPC doesn't have the authority.
>>>> EPEL is a Fedora project.
>>>> Thus, I hereby deem that FPC has the authority.
>>>> As to the commitment, I have it. I can only speak for myself on such
>>>> matters.
>> Thanks spot.
>>
>>> Same here, so let's formalize it at tomorrow's IRC meeting (the
>>> commitment) and the authority is asserted until the board says
>>> otherwise.
>> Just to clarify: FESCo is the Committee above FPC (and below the Board)
>> afaics; see
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2007-January/msg00157.html
>>
>> That scheme was ACKed by the board IIRC, too.
> I thought that was always the case

No, in the past the FPC was afaics kind of on the same level as Core and
Extras Committee's, just that the latter had a kind of veto right.

> and was well known to everyone
> involved. How does that fit in this discussion? [...]

It was you that started with sub-thread with "I think setting up
mandates and formal relationships between the various groups is
important." I this way wanted to agree with that and that's why I wrote:

>> We really need to put this stuff (which committee is located where in
>> the game and what is each Committee responsible for) into the wiki
>> somewhere...

Cu
thl




More information about the advisory-board mailing list