On 12-09-05 06:39 AM, Laura Czajkowski wrote: > > On 14/02/12 10:27, Jonathan Lange wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Matthew Revell >> <matthew.rev...@canonical.com> wrote: >>> On 14 February 2012 10:01, Jonathan Lange <j...@mumak.net> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Matthew Revell >>>> <matthew.rev...@canonical.com> wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> I'll put my cards on the table and say that my preference is for >>>>> closing the team-member hole and having a separate PPA agreement. >>>>> Obviously that depends on an agreement system that can track more than >>>>> just the one CoC. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>>> Are Launchpad's own terms of use not sufficient? >>> >>> The PPA terms and the general LP terms probably are sufficient, as >>> worded. I think we can do a better job of making them visible and of >>> explicitly asking people to abide by the PPA terms. >>> > >> Oh, I had thought that Launchpad had folded the PPA terms of use into >> its main terms of use. > >> If LP is striving for ease of maintenance, having one thing that >> people need to agree to in order to use the site is probably better >> than having three such things. > >> jml > > > Hi, > > Just to follow up very briefly on this, I noticed today a user > questioned why he didn't have to sign the CoC in order to create a PPA. > He like me and others was under the impression this was still being > done. It was brought to the CC for discussion and it was agreed it was > still to be kept > http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2012/02/16/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t17:48 Has > this since changed and if so when was it done so we can update the > documentation. >
Warning: this is recollection from long ago, but if I recall correctly in the beginning you were either forced to accept the PPA terms of use, or sign the Ubuntu CoC to create a PPA. (I think it was the former, but I might be wrong) A long time ago (at least 3 years), we removed that restriction that was making the PPA creation more complex than it needed to be. If it was a click-through that was simple enough, Ubuntu CoC signing is even more complex involving GPG keys. Anyway, the current scheme hasn't change in the last 3 years I'm pretty sure. We don't have the resources to fix this at this moment. If that's important to the Ubuntu Community they could either escalate the bug (either waiting for a slot on the queue, or exchanging it for one of their already escalated bug) or implement the fix themselves. Cheers -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
