governance, fesco, board, etc.

[Max Spevack]

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> 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?

Anyone can place features on the list.  If work gets done, and a feature 
is completed and gets in during the appropriate Test1, Test2, etc 
cycles, then wonderful.

If a particular feature is "owned" by RHEL engineering or some other Red 
Hat group, then it stands to reason that they will get it done in time 
for inclusion in the appropriate Fedora release.

John's job is mostly to bring organization, sanity, process, and clarity 
to the Fedora feature process.  It's never really had those adjectives 
used to describe it before.

> 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?

I suppose the first line of conversation would be FESCO, with 
consultation or escalation to the Fedora Board if it is particularly 
conentious, or has some sort of "special" considerations that need to be 
discussed.

-- 
Max Spevack
+ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack
+ gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc
+ fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21