Infinite Freedom???

[Karsten Wade]

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:58 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:

> And if you submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora 
> release, I'm pretty sure you'd get it.

Who should actually approve different spins as being "Formally Fedora"?

/me likes the audio pun in that title, and it is more accurate than the
abused word 'official'

I'll be honest -- I don't mind that there be a Board rubber stamp
[Formally Fedora Spin], but it needs to be just that -- a rubber stamp
approval on top of a recommendation from a group of people who can
actually vet the individual distro.

Perhaps I see a flood of such requests.  Perhaps I personally fear the
work of figuring out how to automate the testing of such requests.

Based on the new understanding of the Board's role, shouldn't it be the
Board says, "Fedora needs to formally recognize new community-sourced
spins that are within Fedora guidelines," and FESCo makes it so?
Presumably by firing up a SIG, modifying some build sys magic, and so
forth.

- Karsten
-- 
   Karsten Wade, 108 Editor       ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          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-marketing-list/attachments/20070620/a9ad76cb/attachment.sig>