Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?

[Bill Nottingham]

Adam Miller (maxamillion at fedoraproject.org) said: 
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Take a random downstream app. (Firefox is an example, but there are many
> > others.) Right now, it only needs to track a single version of python,
> > or a single auth framework, even if it may be used on any desktop or any
> > spin. The implication is that in some sort of future with SIG-specific
> > conflicting frameworks, this downstream app maintainer now must be familiar
> > with, and handle *all* of the frameworks, even though they're not
> > specifcally a part of any SIG. That's sort of a rotten thing to do to
> > Joe Random Maintainer.
> >
> > You could say that the SIG needs to then supply people to handle every
> > potential downstream app, but that's also not nice, and is going to lead
> > to fun coordination with updates.
> <snip>
> 
> I don't think that's an issue either, I'm not proposing we change
> anything such that it could cause problems.

Toshio was, and that's what I'm responding to.

Bill