how about supporters like e.g. the irc support group?
* technical background: yes,
* have to suffer the sins of others: yes,
* have a different point of view on various changes and ideas: yes,
* are closer to the user base and their common problems: yes
kind regards,
Rudolf Kastl
--
devel mailin
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 19:35 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 06:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > The issue that came up in the discussion was that there is a good group
> > to use to include for QA. The qa group isn't really used and proventesters
> > is a bit broad and its fu
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Or we can open it to the entire project and
> just assume that the electorate will ensure that nobody inappropriate
> gets elected.
I don't see the harm in letting the electorate decide this. If you're
not a packager and you somehow manage
Am Montag, den 14.11.2011, 12:31 -0500 schrieb Clyde E. Kunkel:
>
> Multidisciplinary membership is good. However, please keep a balance in
> that no one group is over represented.
>
> Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community?
I'd say no. Not only because I thin
On 11/14/2011 05:50 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>
>> Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community?
Very strong no from me.
FESCO is a technical committee, supposed to provide strategic technical
decisions
On 11/14/2011 06:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The issue that came up in the discussion was that there is a good group
> to use to include for QA. The qa group isn't really used and proventesters
> is a bit broad and its future is in question. One possible solution is
> to start using the qa grou
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 16:15:05 +,
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that
> fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging
> group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is intended to be the
> body with technic
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 04:19:50PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that
> > fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging
> > group. That's arguably overly r
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that
>> fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging
>> group. That's arguably overly restrictive
On 11/14/2011 04:30 PM, drago01 wrote:
> That does not make sense. Why should a "non-technical member" be in
> the body that make technical decisions?
Agreed FESCO needs to be made up of people with really strong technical
background and a be very skilled in maintaining and packaging components
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community?
> Should provide a nice balance to the technical side.
Fesco exists to make technical decisions. The people who are members
should be competent to make th
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel
wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 11:19 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that
>>> fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the pac
On 11/14/2011 11:19 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that
>> fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging
>> group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that
> fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging
> group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is intended to be the
> body with technical oversight
14 matches
Mail list logo
