wxl at ubuntu.com
Tue May 3 17:44:43 UTC 2016
The fact of the matter is that transparency is a key component of open
source. This is demonstrated in the actual Ubuntu Code of Conduct (see the
"Be Collaborative" section):
Backroom discussions are for multinational corporations. Unlike that
situation, where intentions are questionable, our own backroom discussions
may not be some "clandestine" political act, but that does not mean that
it's ok because of it. For example, I don't know what the heck you're
talking about in the above with regards to bug fixes and mis-matches. That
is indicative of the fact that transparency is not being upheld. We are a
team here, not a dictatorship. No one really wants to be part of that kind
of team because, frankly, they're not.
Also our last IRC meeting (attended by our developers), had much discussion
about preparing LXQt in Lubuntu for y-cycle:
so the change recorded on the wiki discussing a release in b-cycle is a
pretty dramatic change:
That being said, it would be wise for the sake of the rest of the team to
include the logs of all these discussions.
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Phill. Whiteside <phillwuk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Walter,
> I'm not sure where it states we are not going to attempt a release for
> 16.10? The initial assertion by Julien to *just* use lxqt from debian was
> made before it was apparent that xorg / desktop etc. are not in that
> meta-package. They are all flavour specific. Jorn (one of our devs) and Alf
> (agaida on irc) have discussed the various packages and there is a bug fix
> pending for the mail application. We also discovered the mis-match in repos
> which has been forwarded to Julien for he and Alf to have a chat about once
> Julien returns from his sabbatical. Between emails, chats on Facebook and
> on various IRC channels I have pulled together all that information as up
> to date as possible (Been a long time since I rebuilt a package to confirm
> the cause of a bug!). Nothing clandestine, just people on different media
> whilst getting an up to date status report from Developers so that we know
> where things are up to.
> On 3 May 2016 at 16:17, ∅ <maps.backward at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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:
>>> 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
@wxl | http://polka.bike
Lubuntu Release Manager & Head of QA
Ubuntu PPC Point of Contact
Ubuntu Oregon LoCo Team Leader
Ubuntu Membership Board & LoCo Council Member
Eugene Unix & GNU/Linux User Group Co-Organizer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lubuntu-devel