Admin question

[Karsten Wade]

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
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
                       Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
-------------- 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-dsco-list/attachments/20050422/266ff261/attachment.sig>