FFE: Setting Ubuntu Font As Default

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday, October 01, 2010 06:58:09 am Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 03:14 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> > On 1 October 2010 10:07, Scott Ritchie <scott at open-vote.org> wrote:
> >> On 09/30/2010 12:06 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 30, 2010 02:14:03 pm Rick Spencer wrote:
> >>>> Hi all ...
> >>>> 
> >>>> I want to bring this FFE to attention:
> >>>> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/64961
> >>>> 6
> >>>> 
> >>>> It is my understanding that using the Ubuntu font by default has been
> >>>> the plan of record for some weeks or months. None the less, given the
> >>>> time lines involved, I thought it best to raise wider awareness that
> >>>> we are preparing this change as it is after even RC Freeze.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The change will set the Ubuntu font to be the default in the UI, but
> >>>> not for documents or monospace. Please note that the FFE has not yet
> >>>> been accepted.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Cheers, Rick
> >>> 
> >>> It was also the plan of record to have the font in the archive about a
> >>> month earlier than we actually got it.
> >>> 
> >>> Scott K
> >> 
> >> Agreed.  Don't do it.
> >> 
> >> We have these policies because they're good software engineering
> >> practice.  It matters that, for instance, the screenshots in the
> >> documentation actually look like the operating system.
> >> 
> >> Scott Ritchie
> > 
> > I view this as a valid FFE, otherwise what are FFEs for? (bug fixes
> > are not FFEs) I see this an important and immediately testable change
> > to the branding/identity of Ubuntu; change to the Ubuntu branding
> > after release would look like it shipped incomplete.
> > 
> > It is better software engineering to not blindly apply rules, but be
> > smart about how/when they are applied (so sticking to them in most
> > cases).
> > 
> > Daniel
> 
> The idea isn't to change the branding after release -- that would be a
> bad idea for the same reason doing this so late in the cycle is a bad idea.
> 
> The idea is to table it until the next release when we can verify that
> the unintended consequences are manageable.
> 

Since Robbie Williamson is a member of the release team and he approved it, 
it's a valid FFe, so from a process perspective it is clean.  I think it's 
also clear that when acting as SABDFL, Mark Shuttleworth doesn't actually need 
an FFe approval from the release team anyway.  I'd have preferred a different 
choice, but there's no question that this change was legitimately made using 
the defined Ubuntu structures.

Scott K