Ubuntu Business Remix update

Mark Shuttleworth mark at ubuntu.com
Tue Jan 31 10:18:03 UTC 2012

On 31/01/12 09:27, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>> software to be 'part of Ubuntu'? From my perspective:
>>   * it would need to be exposed in the software center
>>   * it would need a counterparty to a VMWare distribution agreement,
>>   * it would need to be packaged to a high standard, modulo the
>> constraints imposed by the ISV
> Is there a mechanism you can think of which would allow, say, VMWare
> What if there's a packaging bug in partner? Would Ubuntu developers be
> able to fix it and upload it?

That's a reasonable question. I don't see any reason why that would not
be possible, modulo the upload, which probably needs to be sponsored.
Even that might not be the case, we could treat the archive like main.

>>> From a user perspective, it would need to represent the 'best and
>> recommended way to consume that software on Ubuntu'.
>> Having an archive backed by Canonical allows us (Ubuntu) to enable users
>> to use their standard tools across a wider range of software. It saves
>> them from tarballs, install scripts, wget | sudo etc ;-)
> Is it possible to have a Canonical backed archive that is completely
> integrated into the Ubuntu project? Fall under an Ubuntu.com domain,
> fit into the Ubuntu governance structure (TB, CC, DMB, etc could vote
> on issues regarding the archive), etc?

Well, we're having this conversation, so I think it's fair to say the TB
and CC do have a say ;)

> Surely there's more to having it officially part of Ubuntu than having
> it available in Software Center?

What would your average user say? I think your average user would say 'I
found this stuff through Ubuntu itself, I assume it's part of Ubuntu'.

>> a review of what's in there and steer it in a better direction, if there
>> are concerns? I would feel the TB should be comfortable expressing a
>> view on *how* to achieve that goal, I'm less comfortable with the TB
>> expressing a view on whether that's a goal for the project, but then I
>> respect all the folk *on* the TB, all of whom are also long term and
>> senior project leaders, which is why it makes sense to engage in the
>> thread.
> What's wrong with the TB expressing their views on the goals for the
> project in terms of the Partner repository? I'd expect nothing less
> from a board like the TB!

We make a big point of delegating the right questions to the right
audience, and not trying to get everybody to agree, or feel entitled to
question, every decision.

The TB's mandate is to ensure quality, participation and
future-proof-ness of the bits. So I was saying I felt very comfortable
having a conversation with the TB (an invitation to comment and guide)
around the way the archive is managed and maintained, and the standards
we set for bits we deliver to our users.

The CC's mandate is closer to the policy questions raised here, if there
are any. That's why they are cc'd.

And I was expressly saying that, given the credentials of the TB folk,
I'm happy to get the input from them and keen to seek an approach which
has their support (and from people subscribed to this list ;-).


More information about the technical-board mailing list