On 11/19/2015 09:11 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo
member I'm strongly
> > suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's add to
> > the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play an
> > *active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the Council
> > or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks.
> > Does this sound more reasonable for you?
Sounds fantastic to me!
Does this mean you're onboard with FAmSCo elections with the proviso
that they should be actively working to make FOSCo happen?
Was anybody else -1 on FAmSCo elections?
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
jzb(a)redhat.com |
http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb |
http://dissociatedpress.net/