governance, fesco, board, etc.

[Rahul Sundaram]

Max Spevack wrote:
> 
> (1) Features, led by John Poelstra.  This group tracks feature 
> development (from spec through code) for various things that we'd like 
> to have end up in Fedora at some point. 

I think this proposal is solid but I would like to have a clarification 
here. Is John Poelstra going to arbitrate features or just going to keep 
track of them? If he is keeping track of these features how do they end 
up in the features list? Are they going to get proposed and added by 
various teams and SIG's within Fedora or they driven by a higher level 
group? A combination of both of these?

If there are disputes regarding the features being proposed or the 
schedule between releases (A strict schedule would avoid this problem 
unless we want to change it for a particular release as a exception), is 
it the responsibility of FESCo or Fedora Board to arbitrate on them?

Rahul