Minutes of the Technical Board meeting 2013-02-18

Stéphane Graber stgraber at ubuntu.com
Fri Feb 22 19:41:41 UTC 2013

On 02/22/2013 02:32 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 01:11:05AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:46:09PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 01:02:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>>>>   * The TB recognizes that requiring already existing upload rights is not
>>>>>   * something we can enforce in this case, and that developer merits
>>>>>   * should be acquired while working on Kylin instead.  This should be
>>>>>   * reviewed in six months, until then the Foundations team has agreed to
>>>>>   * be formally responsible for the flavour and help out with mentoring,
>>>>>   * sponsoring, and release engineering.
>>>> So the actual quote during the meeting appears to have been:
>>>>  <stgraber> I guess I'll be talking with slangasek on whether he'd be
>>>>             happy to be a temporary flavour lead for Kylin (or have
>>>>             Foundations do that) until they are familiar enough with
>>>>             everything and have upload rights to do all that themselves
>>>> As he and I haven't had that conversation yet, I don't think this has
>>>> actually been agreed so far. :-)
>>>> Can you clarify what it would mean to be "formally responsible" here? 
>>>> Speaking for Foundations we are interested in helping the UbuntuKylin team
>>>> get up to speed and integrated into the Ubuntu developer community so they
>>>> can be self-sustaining.  I'm a bit concerned that Foundations being
>>>> "formally responsible" for anything here could get in the way of that goal,
>>>> by leading people to have conversations with us that they should instead be
>>>> having directly with the UbuntuKylin folks.  I realize there's a
>>>> bootstrapping question here, and that it's hard to ramp up a new flavor if
>>>> you're not already an Ubuntu developer, and therefore mentorship and support
>>>> will be required.  But I'm keen to ensure it's understood that this *is*
>>>> support, not leadership - the real leaders of UbuntuKylin are people in
>>>> China like Jack, who have a direct understanding of the requirements.
>>> Right, this is more a matter of a sort of regular meta-sponsor rather
>>> than a leader.  The point of the UbuntuKylin flavour vs. the current
>>> Chinese Edition images is that UbuntuKylin is run by people with their
>>> feet on the ground who know what they're doing directly, rather than
>>> operating at one remove.
>>> We're working our way through https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedFlavors
>>> here, and this is our first test of that process for the task of
>>> approving an entirely new flavour.  My feeling is that when we wrote the
>>> documentation we were envisaging something like Lubuntu that had been in
>>> preparation in the Ubuntu archive for several release cycles before it
>>> became official, rather than something like this which started only
>>> quite recently and whose developers don't yet have Ubuntu upload
>>> permissions and the like.  As a result we have a bit of a bootstrapping
>>> problem with clauses such as "Image has track record of community
>>> interested in creating, supporting and promoting its use" and "Flavor
>>> lead identified and responsive though 6 month cycle".
>>> I think what we've settled on is that, with support, we can start
>>> getting daily builds up and running based on where UbuntuKylin is right
>>> now.  They can't yet operate without sponsorship, advice, and general
>>> advice, and I don't think the TB would be acting responsibly in
>>> approving a new flavour without making sure that that framework would be
>>> in place for them.  But I think we are all on the same page that the
>>> goal is for the UbuntuKylin team to meet "Guidelines to become and
>>> remain a recognized flavor" on their own merits when we review this in
>>> six months' time.
>>> My understanding is that "formally responsible" in Martin's minutes
>>> should be read as something like "responsible but only for form's sake".
>>> A better phrasing would be to say something along the lines of
>>> indicating that the Foundations team has agreed to support the flavour
>>> until such time as they can fend for themselves.  Would you be OK with
>>> that?
>> Yes, when it's worded that way that seems perfectly fine.
>> I had a follow-up conversation with Stéphane on IRC, where we concluded that
>> the next steps for getting UbuntuKylin on its feet should probably be:
>>  1) get the correct uploader dev team created in launchpad
>>  2) add ubuntu-core-dev to it as the only member (for now)
>>  3) ask the DMB for a packageset with this new dev team as its uploading
>>     group
>>  4) (Foundations) help the UbuntuKylin developers prepare for applying for
>>     PPU rights for this package set once it exists
>> Would this plan meet with the TB's approval?  My understanding is that steps
>> 1-3 are technically very easy, but that Stéphane would like to have the TB's
>> formal approval before proceeding.
> This seems like the right series of steps to me. +1

As I proposed those I certainly agree with them ;) +1

>> Likewise, my understanding is that we don't have approval yet from the TB to
>> begin building daily images of UbuntuKylin.  What further steps are
>> necessary before we begin doing so?
> No objections to this either. +1

I'm happy with that too.
Traditionally we're supposed to ask IS to check for disk space on
cdimage and any affected mirror. However as this image is meant to
replace an image we currently build, I don't think it's necessary, as
long as we don't keep large history of both products.


> -Kees

Stéphane Graber
Ubuntu developer

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 901 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20130222/64ff23f1/attachment.pgp>

More information about the technical-board mailing list