Hi Steve, On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 15:12 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > [snip] > I realize that you are arguing for a fourth option, which is that the > TB > should relax its standards instead. But IMHO this is the least > correct, > because it sweeps under the rug the very real problem of > maintainability of > the flavor, which the TB has determined is important. >
I want to clarify this point. I'm not arguing for a fourth option of relaxing any policy. Rather, my argument was that the TB should abide by what is published. I understand there's a distinction between "the letter of the policy" and "the spirit of the policy". If the spirit is that upload rights must be for the entire packageset, then that needs to be more clearly defined in the language; "a bug in the language" as you so aptly put. I also realize there is no definition on "core" packages for a flavor. That was a term I came up with on-the-fly to mean the packages we regularily interact with. > From my perspective, provided all parties continue to engage earnestly > around this issue, Ubuntu Studio is still on track to be released with > 19.04. > ... > The intention is not to kill the flavors, but to bring them into compliance. > I still believe that is achievable and that should be our first priority. I belive that is achievable as well, and I thank you for your insight. I'm glad this two- to three-year-old bug is finally getting fixed. I've been putting a large chunk of energy into saving Ubuntu Studio for the past year, and I can only hope that those efforts are paying off. Thanks, Erich -- Erich Eickmeyer Council Chair Ubuntu Studio ubuntustudio.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
