Admin question

[Mark Johnson]

OK - thanks quaid.

I think I now have a grasp of what's appropriate for the FDSC process docs. I'll 
try to get something together 'real soon'.

And the usability stuff has been punted to early next week. Oops.

Have a weekend!
Mark

Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 14:57 -0400, Mark Johnson wrote:
> 
> 
>>Better yet, is the above question (who approves CVS access) plus the issues 
>>below (who qualifies for CVS access) the kind of stuff I should put in the 
>>process doc draft?
>>
>>Too specific? Or a smartly-documented decision procedure?
> 
> 
> There are two separate sets of process documents happening, aiui.
> 
> You are working on the process doc for the committee.
> 
> All of the other process documentation is for the project itself, and
> should be in the Doc Guide.
> 
> These could all be in the Doc Guide, but I think that changes the Doc
> Guide scope too much.  Right now it's a safe-n-sane, "Document how to
> participate in the FDP."
> 
> Does this make sense?
> 
> So, Paul took on the CVS access docs on Tuesday and has been working on
> them via the Wiki, but we probably want to put them in the Doc Guide and
> make that canonical.
> 
> However, if our CVS decision process includes some kind of action or
> reaction on the part of the FDSCo, then we should have at least that
> part documented in the process docs.
> 
> - Karsten
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --
> fedora-dsco-list mailing list
> fedora-dsco-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-dsco-list


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Johnson                     <mjohnson at redhat.com>
OS Product Documentation
Engineering, Red Hat, Inc.       <http://www.redhat.com>
Tel: 919.754.4151                Fax: 919.754.3708
GPG fp: DBEA FA3C C46A 70B5 F120  568B 89D5 4F61 C07D E242