Christopher Aillon wrote:
As was pointed out on other lists, that doesn't stop anyone from putting
in non-free software. They simply have to not write a feature page on
the wiki and just do it. We can take recourse, but the FESCo approval
process does not stop it if someone wants to do it. So, one could make
the argument that FESCo approval should be needed only if someone is
unsure about whether it is a good idea; not for everything, which would
be more of a "steering" role IMO.
... which is fine by me. I don't think a FESCo approval is really
necessary for each and every feature. FESCo can generally have a "keep
an eye on the feature list" item in their schedule all the time and ask
questions if needed.
Yeah. Now if only there was a member of desktop that was on the
board/fesco that had stated they wanted to facilitate communication
between the desktop team and both the board and fesco as part of their
mission statement prior to successfully being elected....
In that case you should list yourself as the feature own for all the
desktop related specs. If desktop team is a SIG it should act more like
all the other SIG's in Fedora and list the lead, members, tasks to do etc.
What the desktop team does was pretty opaque to me and that has improved
quite a lot these days since I can read the feature list and this
mailing list isn't dead either.
KDE SIG is a very good example to follow since they do open weekly irc
meetings too which is pretty good to keep track of what that team is doing.
Or we could make you do it since you seem to never sleep and thus are in
everyone's timezone. ;-)
That would work too, seriously. If you want me as a gateway for some of
the specs, let me know.
Rahul