Delegation of LTS flavour qualification to the release team?

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 05:04:50PM +0000, Robie Basak wrote:
> As a member of the Technical Board who is not on the Release Team, it
> always struck me as odd that the TB is responsible for determining which
> flavours qualify for the LTS label.

> Personally, if someone from the release team says it's OK, then I agree.
> I don't think I have anything to add or change. I don't think I have any
> expertise or considered opinion to add in this area that I'd routinely
> want to provide any input that the release team has not already done.

> Contrast with the new flavour process[1][2] where a requirement is "The
> flavour’s intention and goals are aligned with the goals of the Ubuntu
> project"[3] which doesn't seem to me like a release team thing. So in
> that case I think it makes sense to consult with the TB on just that
> point, but to leave everything else to the release team.

> Could the LTS designation decision for flavours be something that we
> could delegate entirely to the release team for future cycles?

> Of course technically the TB would retain the right to overrule
> anything, but that would be exceptional and I don't see any reason for
> the process to have to involve TB in the routine case.

I do not want to see this delegated to the Release Team.  The Release Team
is structured entirely as a technical team, and has no decision-making
processes for questions like this.  And I do not want the Release Team to be
in the position of having to tell a flavor "no" if they have not met the LTS
criteria.

If there are disagreements about whether a flavor is eligible for LTS
status, I think it's precisely the mandate of the TB to deal with such
conflict, not the Release Team.  Members of the TB have, in essence, signed
up for this kind of work; Release Team members have not.  I think the
consequence of delegating this to the Release Team is that we will have
poorer adherence, and as a result worse releases, because the Release Team
will tend to avoid the emotionally draining work of saying no (and having
their authority challenged) and instead end up having to do more work on
behalf of any flavors that are not delivering on their obligations to be
self-sustaining.

You might point out that the Release Team actually is in the business of
saying "no" all the time, in the context of freeze exceptions.  But the
dynamic is different there, the stakes are much lower, and if there is
contention it is much more likely to be resolvable via discussion of
technical trade-offs.

-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/attachments/20231220/3e6de5b3/attachment.sig>