Decision time: Are SCG the steward of the kernel as proposed?

Hi fellow Guides!

When I just wrote the "monthly status report" I realized that we haven't
really decided about "giving" SCG the Stewardship of the kernel. Of
course, we guides are by no means "dictators" but we do have a
responsibility to move discussions into decisions and after reading
through this thread (the post from Alexandre Bergel felt like the
"official request" from SCG) it looks to me that everyone is in favour
of this arrangement.

So someone needs to "hit the club in the desk", or whatever you call it.

We talked a bit about what being a Steward means and we more or less
came to the conclusion that we don't want to set any rules at this
point. It is better to move ahead and learn. The only "guideline" that
Andreas mentioned would be that as a Steward you simply need to be "more
careful" when evolving the package - you obviously have much more
dependents maintaining something in the kernel.

What we all wanted was some form of charter from SCG what they plan etc
but I think we have a pretty good picture already and it probably will
not affect the decision here - which is more a question of trust in
their capability and motives. :-)

So, just to move forward one step:

Can we Guides agree to give SCG this Stewardship? I vote yes.

Let us all (us Guides that is) reply to this post so that we get a full
count (6) and then we can make it "official", unless of course someone
is against or still have things to discuss in which case we will just
have to discuss further.

regards, Göran