motu-release

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi,

Am Friday 26 February 2010 20:37:24 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 03:52:49PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> > Regarding the team unification, is there an expectation that the
> >>
> >> two-vote
> >>
> >> > approach will continue?  I don't have a strong preference between the
> >> > ubuntu-release and motu-release approaches, but I think it would be
> >>
> >> strange
> >>
> >> > to be applying different procedures for different archive sections -
> >>
> >> or to
> >>
> >> > different members of the team! - so we should probably pick one...
> >>
> >> I think it should go.  IMO one of the main reasons to unify the teams is
> >> to
> >> simply the process for people trying to work through getting needed
> >> approvals.
> >> If we have two separate rule sets, we may as well keep it two teams (I'm
> >> not
> >> proposing we do this).
> >
> > I think the attached diff for FreezeExceptionProcess reflects the
> > emerging consensus.  Are there any objections if I apply this to the wiki
> > and send out an updated freeze process mail to u-d-a?
> >
> > Are there any team delegations we want to have in place before sending
> > out the announcement?
>
> It looks good to me.  No objections.

no objection, but still got a few questions:
1) how are FFe's handled? I assume that one ACK from a member of 
ubuntu-release suffices, correct?

2) new packages: do we also just require one ACK there, or do we want two 
ACKs? Also, new packages was delegated from MOTU to motu-release (or rather 
motu-uvf which got renamed to motu-release later). Even later ubuntu-release 
was made a member of motu-release, acknowledging that ubuntu-release should 
always be able to decide for motu-release. Do we need a formal MOTU decision 
to transfer this responsibility? If so (please speak up if you anyone think 
that it's needed, otherwise I'll assume consensus), what is the current 
process to get this decision?

3) Universe used to have a later deadline for final freeze, to get latest bug 
fixes in. Past the deadline we used -proposed to get very late fixes in, 
handing over the queue to -sru. I think this could prove worthwhile again. 
Maybe we should replace universe with unseeded packages and decide later on 
it?

>
> WRT delegations: I think between Riddell and myself Kubuntu is already
> well covered.  In the past I was the server team delegate for Universe,
> but the only purpose that served was to obviate the double ack rule.
> Since we're getting rid of that rule, I think there's no need.  I woulnd't
> let getting delegation sorted out stop announcing thins.

delegations also served to have the people with best knowledge cover an FFe. 
Teams not mentioned yet were we had delegates are:
* mythbuntu
* mozilla team
* ubuntustudio
* xubuntu
* desktop (gnome)
* netbook
* edubuntu

I'm not yet 100% sure how delegates fit in with the motu-release and 
ubuntu-release merge. Personally, for few requests I've simply subscribed the 
relevant persons and requested input from them, which gave the basis on my 
decision. I'd suggest that this scheme can be applied until we reach 
consensus about delegates.

Cheers,
   Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20100228/e36e6c81/attachment.pgp