Skip to content

Conversation

@garloff
Copy link
Member

@garloff garloff commented Jun 27, 2025

We discussed and agreed on this in the SIG Std/Cert on 2025-06-26.

We discussed and agreed on this in the SIG Std/Cert on 2025-06-26.

Signed-off-by: Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de>
@garloff garloff self-assigned this Jun 27, 2025
@garloff
Copy link
Member Author

garloff commented Jun 27, 2025

In my mental model, the power to create technical standards is delegated from the SCS Community (represented by the Project Board) to the teams and when we decide that the SIG can fill in for inactive teams, the Project Board should probably agree and delegate to the SIG instead for that case. So I guess the Project Board should look at this quickly before we can merge it.
(Likewise, the power to create procedural standards and to stear the overall process originates at the Forum SCS-Standards and is largely delegated (with the veto powers merged by #954) to the SIG Std/Cert.)

@mbuechse mbuechse requested a review from fkr June 30, 2025 11:15
@garloff
Copy link
Member Author

garloff commented Jun 30, 2025

The SCS Project Board is in favor of this as discussed today.

@garloff garloff merged commit 52e65dc into main Jun 30, 2025
8 checks passed
@garloff garloff deleted the feat/sigstd-as-fallback-to-inactive-team branch June 30, 2025 22:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants