governance, fesco, board, etc.

[Jeremy Katz]

On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 23:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Max Spevack wrote:
> > (1) Features, led by John Poelstra.  This group tracks feature 
> > development (from spec through code) for various things that we'd like 
> > to have end up in Fedora at some point. 
> 
> I think this proposal is solid but I would like to have a clarification 
> here. Is John Poelstra going to arbitrate features or just going to keep 
> track of them? If he is keeping track of these features how do they end 
> up in the features list? Are they going to get proposed and added by 
> various teams and SIG's within Fedora or they driven by a higher level 
> group? A combination of both of these?

I think John (as the "head/chair" of the feature group) is doing a lot
of tracking -- but also probably making sure that features that are put
on the list actually meet the criteria for being a release feature.
Things like "someone is committed to doing the work" and "the work is
reasonable based on the schedule"

> If there are disputes regarding the features being proposed or the 
> schedule between releases (A strict schedule would avoid this problem 
> unless we want to change it for a particular release as a exception), is 
> it the responsibility of FESCo or Fedora Board to arbitrate on them?

FESCo generally

Jeremy