> Am 11.02.2021 um 17:28 schrieb Neal Gompa <email@example.com>:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02 AM Peter Boy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Folks, we have now spent some time housekeeping and organization, so far without viable result. The only solution I see is a restart with the help of FESCo and/or Council.
>> For these areas we would need to find someone who commits to "… N hours a week to do whatever is needed…" and "...sitting in multiple meetings in a week to reach a consensus..." (Stephen Smoogen).
> Not being a WG would be a serious blow to the Server Edition,
> including potentially endangering its prominence on the main website
> and in marketing. I would rather it stay being a working group. That
> said, the charter for the Server WG is kind of onerous compared to the
> Workstation WG and perhaps we need to fix the governance of the Server
> WG to be more lightweight. We made similar adjustments in the
> Workstation WG a few years ago, and it made things considerably
Sorry if my wording was misleading. I was *not* suggesting that the Working Group should be dispensed with. I was suggesting to keep the WG the way it is suggested by Fedora procedures (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Leadership#Working_Groups). Not everyone who likes to participate will be willing and able to do the same high level of work that is expected of the Working Group. Hence the proposal to re-establish both, SIG and WG. This avoids misunderstandings, failures and disappointed expectations.
I'm interested and have from 4 to 6 hours a week to work on Server. I've been a little behind on my tasks with the PRD; but I'm planning this weekend to finish them.
So, what it's decided here, I'm up to work!
GNU/Linux User #589060
Ubuntu User #8749
Fedora Marketing Representative