Future of MOTU

Jamie Strandboge jamie at canonical.com
Mon Feb 22 14:54:46 GMT 2010

On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 14:06 +0000, Iain Lane wrote:
> >iii) MOTU SWAT needs help, especially as it moves from "universe" to
> >"unseeded packages".  I believe that extended discussion is worthwhile
> >between the MOTU SWAT team and the Ubuntu Security team to determine
> >if all security efforts could follow a standardised process and be
> >handled by a single extended team (with some potential for separation
> >within the team to support embargoed information, disclosure
> >requirements, etc.).  If MOTU SWAT is to remain separate, some work
> >will need to be done on the tools to help better track what packages
> >need attention and when.
> As an outsider, it seems to me that this team lacks coordination, and 
> would benefit from being under the Ubuntu security umbrella so that the 
> engineers working there can effectively delegate the required security 
> work for Universe packages. 

This is probably true and our teams can discuss ways to address this.

> With proper work tracking, I can see this 
> being a successful collaboration.

I think we already have all the tracking mechanisms in place, we just
need people to work on them:


Jamie Strandboge             | http://www.canonical.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20100222/b964efcb/attachment-0001.pgp 

More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list