<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"> As a data point, let's encourage and nurture Ubuntu Budgie, they are an exciting addition to the desktop space. DMB and TB carry responsibility for making sure we keep the archive and developer community healthy, so I'm not writing to change policy or override anything, only to say the Budgie work is very welcome and it would be good to find a safe way to empower the people driving it to do so in Ubuntu. Mark On 04/04/17 12:29, Robie Basak wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:20170404112957.GU30722@mal.justgohome.co.uk" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hi, On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 04:23:57PM +0100, foss.freedom wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">This cause a lot of confusion and DMB have redirected me back to the TB. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> We did? This doesn't match my understanding. Please can you tell us what gave you this impression? Usually the DMB decides and defines packagesets, not the TB. Since I'm pretty sure the TB doesn't expect to have any involvement in this, I'm moving this thread back to the devel-permissions@ list, with the TB in Bcc only. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Please can a packageset be officially defined for Ubuntu Budgie? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> We (the DMB) deferred defining a packageset because packagesets are only used for access control, and we currently don't have anyone approved to be in that access control list anyway. So it shouldn't make any difference whether a packageset is defined right now or not. Have I missed something? Is there any other reason you need a packageset defined right now? Robie </pre> <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> </blockquote> </body> </html>