<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> Hey Erich, I'm a relatively new member of the TB and not familiar with how flavors were granted LTS status in the past but let me share my perspective on what you wrote. <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 24/11/2023 à 07:02, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit : </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:10eb18eb-6f81-4683-a2d0-4a918cd364a6@ubuntu.com"> That said, this seems way too detailed for a repeated LTS. I will certainly follow this for Edubuntu since it's returning after 10 years, but for Ubuntu Studio, and any other flavor with a prior LTS in the past two years, this should be a much lower bar. </blockquote> Checking <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2016-April/002213.html">https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2016-April/002213.html</a> what I see in this example is 7 bullet points and less than 20 lines of text (wrapped at 80chars), that doesn't seem a long or unachievable task to me. Could you be a specifics on what exactly is making the bar too high in your opinion? To me it feels like it would have taken you less time to write those details than those emails... <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:10eb18eb-6f81-4683-a2d0-4a918cd364a6@ubuntu.com"> That said, I'm not standing-down from this challenge, but revising it: I challenge the Technical Board to revisit and more clearly define exactly what "Flavor's support plan presented to Tech Board and approved; support plan should indicate period of time if beyond 18 months (3yrs or 5yr), key contacts, and setting expectations as to level of support." means with specifics, as the wording is too vague. Furthermore, the policy wording is clearly outdated ("18 months"), has been around too long without revision (2011) and the policy itself should probably be reworked in collaboration with the Flavor Leads as is the spirit of Ubuntu. </blockquote> The page could be probably be a bit more specific on what is asked indeed. I think it's a fair ask for the TB to review the current wording and policy and see if we believe changes are needed. We do review mailing list activity and open questions during our IRC meetings so we should be able to pick it up next time Cheers, Sébastien Bacher </body> </html>