Request: please consider clarifying the project's position on Spins

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 13:35:10 -0500,
  Greg DeKoenigsberg <greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:31:32 -0700,
> >  Kevin Fenzi <kevin at tummy.com> wrote:
> >
> > > b) Move spins to be controlled by sigs. The problem with this is that
> > > then there is no one watching dates, controlling when things are
> > > committed to SCM, approved, etc.
> >
> > This could work if we limited ourselves to a few spins with strong SIGs
> > behind them. But someone would need to decide which spins had strong enough
> > backing to do this for.
> 
> 
> If we are *very* clear about what it takes to be an "official" SIG, and
> there's no illusions about what those requirements are, and if the spins SIG
> is working constantly to lower these requirements with efficient tools and
> processes, then we don't need to decide -- we can allow the SIGs to decide
> for themselves.

Note under option b there is no Spins SIG. Tool improvement would happen on
the livecd list as it does now, mostly independent of Spins SIG. (For live
spins, pungi development is discussed somewhere else.)

The policy would come from FESCO or the Board.