[ubuntu-studio-users] Fwd: UbuntuStudio flavor status in jeopardy, action needed [Was, Re: [Ubuntu Studio] Cry For Help]

Wed Mar 6 17:10:13 UTC 2019

Hi all,

Please see the forwarded email below. I'm forwarding this to you so 
that you can see the dire need we have at this time for a MOTU to 
step-in, sponsor the packages that we need sponsoring, and then sponsor 
myself and/or Ross to become Per-Package Uploaders (PPU).

There is a meeting on Monday to decide this. I have to have my 
application (<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Eickmeyer/DeveloperApplication>) 
done by Friday, which means the packages awaiting sponsorship must be 
sponsored and Ross and/or Myself must be sponsored as well by said 
sponsor. If this does not happen, then there will not be a 19.04 
release, which could effectively kill Ubuntu Studio as an official 
flavor of Ubuntu.

So, please spread the word, and try to rally support to keep this 
effort afloat.

Thanks,
Erich
----
Erich Eickmeyer
Council Chair
Ubuntu Studio

ubuntustudio.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: Steve Langasek <steve.langasek at ubuntu.com>
Subject: UbuntuStudio flavor status in jeopardy, action needed [Was, 
Re: [Ubuntu Studio] Cry For Help]
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:23:18 -0800
To: developer-membership-board at lists.ubuntu.com
Cc: technical-board at lists.ubuntu.com, Erich Eickmeyer 
<eeickmeyer at ubuntu.com>, Ross Gammon <rosco2 at ubuntu.com>

Dear DMB,

In October 2016, I wrote a mail to ask the DMB to revisit their 
approach to
the question of Ubuntu upload rights for Ross Gammon, in light of the 
fact
that this meant the difference between having or not having any 
uploaders on
the team of an official flavor, UbuntuStudio.

Because there has been some turnover on the DMB since then, and because 
I'm
adding some new cc:s here (including the TB), I'll quote my original 
email
for context:

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:49:57AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>  Hi Ross,

>  On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 07:11:06PM +0200, Ross Gammon wrote:
>  > Hi Laney & Steve,

>  > Thanks for helping us out in the Ubuntu Studio Team.  I know you 
> guys
>  > already have plenty on the go.

>  > As Set says, I did apply to be a Contributor.  But, because I had 
> only a
>  > few uploads in Ubuntu (I am a DM in Debian), and all to different
>  > sponsors, I didn't manage to get any endorsements.  It didn't help 
> that
>  > I emailed all the sponsors just before the northern hemisphere 
> holidays
>  > either :-)

>  > Anyway, after a few more sponsored uploads you can expect a fresh
>  > application to the DMB.  I will probably ask for PPU rights to the
>  > ubuntustudio-* packages first.  And then I will begin working 
> towards
>  > rights to the Ubuntu Studio package set (which needs a little 
> update by
>  > the way).

>  I think it's important that we as a community not be overly 
> process-bound
>  here.  It is of course still necessary to make sure the people 
> asking for
>  upload rights are trustworthy and know what they're doing, but we're 
> talking
>  here about a situation where an official Ubuntu flavor has an active
>  community but no active members with upload rights.  Fixing this 
> should not
>  require multiple round trips to the DMB for them to grant gradually 
> more
>  permissions over a span of months; the Ubuntu Studio package set 
> exists to
>  serve the needs of the Ubuntu Studio community, and it should be
>  uncontroversial for the folks who are actually maintaining Ubuntu 
> Studio to
>  be given access to this package set.

>  I am cc:ing the DMB to make sure they're aware of this situation, 
> and to ask
>  them to proactively address this gap for the Ubuntu Studio team.

While this resulted in some email discussion with members of the DMB at 
the
time, there was apparently no formal follow-up by the DMB, and I am 
dismayed
to learn that two years on the situation remains unchanged and there 
are no
active members of the ubuntustudio team with upload rights to the Ubuntu
archive, which only came to my attention because of Erich Eickmeyer's 
email
this weekend to ubuntu-release:

On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 11:54:38AM -0800, Erich Eickmeyer wrote:
>  [Sent to: Ubuntu Studio Development, Ubuntu MOTUs, Ubuntu Release 
> Team]

>  Hello all,

>  Over the course of the past few months, myself, Len Ovens, and Ross 
> Gammon
>  have been working hard on updating the Ubuntu Studio tools. In 
> particluar,
>  we have done a number of things to the tools:

>  * Updated Ubuntu Studio Controls (ubuntustudio-controls) with a 
> number of
>  bug fixes
>  * Renamed Ubuntu Studio Meta Installer to Ubuntu Studio Installer
>  (ubuntustudio-installer) and gave it a secondary purpose of 
> installing
>  Ubuntu Studio's stack on top of a flavor other than Ubuntu Studio 
> (think of
>  Ubuntu Studio as a ToolKit)
>  * Updated Ubuntu Studio's default theme and icon theme (part of
>  ubuntustudio-look and ubuntustudio-default-settings in addition to
>  ubuntustudio-icon-theme)
>  * Updated Ubuntu Studio's plymouth boot theme (part of 
> ubuntustudio-look)
>  * Added a GRUB theme (grub2-themes-ubuntustudio)
>  * Fixed bugs and missing apps in our menu (ubuntustudio-menu)
>  * Worked upstream with the developer of Carla to get Carla in 
> Ubuntu's
>  repos.

>  Unfortunately, none of that made it in before feature freeze, 
> despite my
>  mailing our development list that it needed to happen, and tagging 
> certain
>  packages with [needs packaging]. Perhaps I'm just doing it wrong.

>  Basically, it comes down to this: Nobody on the Ubuntu Studio Team 
> has
>  upload privileges in any way. As such, these tools are sitting 
> waiting to be
>  uploaded.

>  So now, unless I'm wrong, each one of the packages now needs a 
> Feature
>  Freeze Exception to be uploaded into the repo. This is disappointing
>  because, as of right now, Ubuntu Studio 19.04 is looking identical 
> to Ubuntu
>  Studio 18.10.

>  My intention was to apply to become a MOTU after the release of 
> 19.04 in
>  order to prevent situations like this from happening again. 
> Unfortunately,
>  it looks like that will be too late unless we can get someone to get 
> in and
>  review these packages:

>  * <https://launchpad.net/grub2-themes-ubuntustudio>
>  * <https://launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-controls>
>  * <https://launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-installer>
>  * <https://launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-icon-theme>
>  * <https://launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-look>
>  * <https://launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-menu>
>  * <https://launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-default-settings>
>  * <https://launchpad.net/carla>

>  So, please take this as our cry for help to get these packages 
> updated and
>  included. I don't know how to do this, and I've never been shown the
>  process. So, maybe my MOTU training sarts here.

>  Thank you for your time, and in advance for your help.

With my TB hat on, let me be direct: it is unacceptable for us to have 
an
official Ubuntu flavor which has no uploaders.  This is explicitly 
called
out in <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedFlavors>:

  Guidelines to become and remain a recognized flavor:

  [...]
  * One or more developer with upload rights.

Unfortunately, since it appears the DMB neither acted, nor communicated 
with
the TB regarding their inaction, and since I also failed to follow up to
make sure this was dealt with, we have now had *four* UbuntuStudio
releases (17.04, 17.10, 18.04, 18.10) which did not meet this policy.

I will say right now that we will not have a fifth.

Now as then, I do not presume to substitute my own judgement for the 
DMB's
regarding whether any particular person should be given upload rights; 
but
we do have a situation that needs to be dealt with rather urgently.
*Either* the UbuntuStudio community proposes, and the DMB ratifies,
ubuntustudio PPU rights for one or more of their devs; *or*, 
UbuntuStudio
must not ship as a recognized flavor for Ubuntu 19.04.

Here is what I would ask of each of the parties on this thread:

 - Erich, Ross: please resubmit ASAP for one or both of you an 
application
   to the DMB for PPU rights on the ubuntustudio packageset.  (Given 
Ross's
   status as a Debian Developer, I would assume it would be easier to 
get
   him approved, but ultimately I think that's for you to decide.)

 - DMB: please prioritize working with the members of the UbuntuStudio 
team
   to ensure timely feedback and timely decision-making so that these 
PPU
   applications have optimal chances of success in time for 19.04.

 - fellow TB members: let's please discuss how we can sustainably audit 
that
   flavors are continuing to meet the requirements for recognition.

Thanks,
-- 
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 <mailto:slangasek at ubuntu.com>                      
               vorlon at debian.org <mailto:vorlon at debian.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-studio-users/attachments/20190306/45cefe34/attachment.html>
-------------- 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-studio-users/attachments/20190306/45cefe34/attachment.sig>