MOTU Release Charter
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Fri Mar 20 00:22:24 GMT 2009
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:06:53 -0700 Jordan Mantha <laserjock at ubuntu.com>
>On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com>
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:18:46 -0700 Jordan Mantha <laserjock at ubuntu.com>
>>>On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com>
>>>> During the Intrepid cycle the MOTU release team members were asked to
>>>> with a charter for the team. It's taken us some time to get a draft
>>>> together, but this:
>>>Thanks to the MOTU Release team for all the work they've put into this
>>>I don't have any major problems with the charter but I have a couple
>>> * is the consultation with the doc team upon UI Freeze only for
>>>seeded packages as well? I wasn't totally clear on that one.
>> It's my understanding (from discussions with ubuntu-release) that U/I
freeze only affects seeded packages.
>That makes sense and is what I assumed, but wasn't *exactly* sure so I
>thought I'd ask.
>>> * "targeted goals" and "motu-release goals" are mentioned. Does that
>>>mean MOTU Release will define and publish release goals?
>> This is something that I think we have never done. I would say yes, but
I'm not sure exactly how it would work. I have, as the Server Team
delegate, approved FFe (as recently as today) based on the Server release
goal of supporting cloud computing.
>> I think that exactly how a Universe release goal would get
proposed/accepted is something we need to figure out. Personally, I don't
think it needs to be defined in the charter.
>I agree that the charter is probably not a place to discuss how we get
>release goals, but I think it helps people see the basis for MOTU
>Release decisions and gives a better idea of where we're heading if we
>do have some defined/published release goals.
I'm generically in favor of MOTU release goals that motu-release would help
coordinate/facilitate. Personally I've always come up empty when I try to
think up what they might be.
>>> * somewhat similar to the previous question, I see mentions of
>>>"transitions". Is is MOTU Release going to define and/or accept
>> Post FF if someone wants to start a library transition it ought to have
an FFe from motu-release. This is how we've operated for some time and
nothing new (I don't think). This is one area where motu-release does
report to the Ubuntu Release team at the regular release team meetings.
>Right, so it didn't seem quite clear to me what defines a transition?
>does say 3 packages constitute a transition? do we just use common
>sense there? It was also not clear in the wording that motu-release is
>only involved post FF.
I can't envision what a non-feature library transition would be. If it's not clear it's only
post-FF, then we ought to adjust it. If you've proposed wording, I'd suggest put it in the
>Again, all this is just clarification of the language, I've got no
>problems with the spirit of the Charter.
Glad to hear it.
More information about the Ubuntu-motu