fesco, fpc and epel relationships

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:22:18AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > I think setting up mandates and formal relationships between the
> > various groups is important. Given that currently most FPC members
> > are not really into RHEL, and that in the past whenever a RHEL
> > rule was being discussed it was (IMHO wrongly) most often simply
> > dumped, because "we are Fedora, not RHEL" the FPC needs to know
> > its current responsibilities.
> >  
> Fedora is more than the operating system.
> 
> Fedora = RedHat = Ford
> Fedora (OS) = RHEL = Mustang
> 
> We aren't the OS, we produce the OS. 

You mean in relation to the quote I gave above: "we are Fedora, not
RHEL"?

The longer version is "We are creating guidelines for packaging within
Fedora Core and Fedora Extras and base them on the demand of these
users and packagers. We are not taking into account special
requirements that are outside this scope, e.g. when they are RHEL
specific, because we don't write guidelines for RHEL".

That statement most probably doesn't hold true anymore, but someone
needs to pass the responsibilities and mandate down to the FPC.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070319/6e919fde/attachment.sig>