Ubuntu Studio (and others) Flavor Status

[eeickmeyer at ubuntu.com]

Hi Steve,

On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 15:12 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [snip]
> I realize that you are arguing for a fourth option, which is that the
> TB
> should relax its standards instead.  But IMHO this is the least
> correct,
> because it sweeps under the rug the very real problem of
> maintainability of
> the flavor, which the TB has determined is important.
> 

I want to clarify this point. I'm not arguing for a fourth option of
relaxing any policy. Rather, my argument was that the TB should abide
by what is published. I understand there's a distinction between "the
letter of the policy" and "the spirit of the policy". If the spirit is
that upload rights must be for the entire packageset, then that needs
to be more clearly defined in the language; "a bug in the language" as
you so aptly put. 

I also realize there is no definition on "core" packages for a flavor.
That was a term I came up with on-the-fly to mean the packages we
regularily interact with.

> From my perspective, provided all parties continue to engage
earnestly
> around this issue, Ubuntu Studio is still on track to be released
with
> 19.04.
> ...  
> The intention is not to kill the flavors, but to bring them into
compliance.
> I still believe that is achievable and that should be our first
priority.

I belive that is achievable as well, and I thank you for your insight.
I'm glad this two- to three-year-old bug is finally getting fixed. I've
been putting a large chunk of energy into saving Ubuntu Studio for the
past year, and I can only hope that those efforts are paying off.

Thanks,
Erich

-- 
Erich Eickmeyer
Council Chair
Ubuntu Studio

ubuntustudio.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 516 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20190313/3e1fbb3e/attachment.sig>