[lubuntu-devel] LXQt

[Walter Lapchynski]

I  find it rather alarming and surprising to hear the notion that we do not
plan on even trying to ship Lubuntu with LXQt for Yakkety. This is a marked
change from everything I've been hearing.

That being said, I'd like to hear some more clarity on why and what exactly
the plan is. That being said, conversation logs are essential. It's
annoying that private channels seem to be appropriate places to decide such
sweeping turn of events.

Including the rest of the team in such discussions is imperative in order
to not undermine the team. An IRC meeting is a good forum for such things.
If this is not possible, the next best thing is a summary to the public
mailing list with reference to the logs of the conversation.

Anything else lacks transparency and ultimately violates the core of what
an open source project is. We have few members in our team and we risk
losing them if we continue to practice this way.

If the media was aware of this, there would certainly be a public outcry.
Regardless of intentions, this is not very open.
On May 3, 2016 5:20 AM, "Simon Quigley" <tsimonq2 at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I didn't ask for Y to be untouched, although I would like you not to mess
> with it. :)
>
> It's much easier for people to follow along if it's on one medium where
> everyone can participate. I've seen little random tidbits on #lxde,
> #debian-lxqt, and #lubuntu-devel but not enough to tell me what's going on.
> #phillw is NOT an LXQt channel and if you want to be public with your
> conversations, like an open project should, please use an official channel.
>
> And if they are in more than one medium, when you change the instructions,
> it would be beneficial to send something to the ML stating all the points
> made, or something along those lines. We all have an email address, so
> carbon-copying exists.
>
> I'd like to reiterate that I'm frustrated that not all of us were
> involved, let alone informed, on the discussions. We just have this final
> decision that doesn't have general consensus but rather a hard-set,
> non-transparent instruction set in place. While I recognize you are all not
> on the same medium, please just send something to the ML before making the
> decision. That's transparency, what this project is supposed to be.
>
> --
> Simon Quigley
> tsimonq2 at ubuntu.com
> tsimonq2 on Freenode
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/lubuntu-devel/attachments/20160503/43411938/attachment.html>