Community flavors and new images

[Robie Basak]

My thinking is along the same lines. I'd like to avoid tying up things
in bureaucracy, so I think it's fine to leave it to the Release Team to
decide if it's obviously and uncontroversially aligned, or if they are
unsure if the Technical Board would agree and therefore need to refer
it.

I'd like for these decisions to be documented though. Maybe we could ask
that the technical-board@ list be copied in with an description of the
goals of the new image and the Release Team's decision on it? That way,
we can ensure that we all stay aligned, and minimise pain if we're not.

> flavour process (the one in the works), I think we still need to make
> sure we assess the type of the image that the given flavor is adding
> and make sure that it's still in-line with the flavor that the TB
> approved. The TB is responsible for making sure that the flavour, and
> its images, are in line with the goals of the Ubuntu project. I don't
> think it's needed to reaffirm this in every case when a new image is
> to be added, but the release team needs to make sure to cycle back to
> the TB in case there's doubts that this is still the case.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 07:27, Steve Langasek <steve.langasek at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > In light of the recent activity on clarifying policies and procedures for
> > new flavors, I thought it was appropriate to bring this question to the TB
> > for review.
> >
> > The Xubuntu team are proposing to have a new official Xubuntu image called
> > Xubuntu Minimal (né Core) and have raised MPs to get it landed on the
> > centralized build infrastructure
> > (https://code.launchpad.net/~xubuntu-dev/debian-cd/+git/debian-cd/+merge/435314
> > et al).
> >
> > In the past, flavors (including Ubuntu) have introduced new images without
> > requiring additional TB approval; e.g., Kubuntu Active, Lubuntu Next, and
> > the Ubuntu Desktop canary image.  These were all handled directly through
> > the Release Team.
> >
> > I think this makes sense, because there are no governance questions here; if
> > there is already a flavor team responsible for one image, we just need to
> > make sure they're taking responsibility for 2, with the existing team, seed
> > structure, etc.
> >
> > Do you agree?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
> > Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
> > Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
> > slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
> > --
> > technical-board mailing list
> > technical-board at lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
>  Foundations Team
>  Tools Squad Interim Engineering Manager
>  lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
>  www.canonical.com
> 
> -- 
> technical-board mailing list
> technical-board at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20230110/be46fe31/attachment.sig>