Let's re-start a discussion about role-based SIGs

[Karsten 'quaid' Wade]

Docs subProject is on-board:

"Governance, direction of project -- please read"
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2008-May/msg00126.html

... and ...

"FDSCo Meeting 2008-05-28 Summary"
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2008-May/msg00125.html

Jeff, I think your scheme is just a natural progression from what has
been going on.  I cannot imagine anyone objecting to formalizing it into
some processes and such, since everyone says that is FP's weakest
point. :)

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20080531/85f08cc8/attachment.sig>