On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 01:11:05AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:46:09PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 01:02:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > * The TB recognizes that requiring already existing upload rights is > > > > not > > > > * something we can enforce in this case, and that developer merits > > > > * should be acquired while working on Kylin instead. This should be > > > > * reviewed in six months, until then the Foundations team has agreed > > > > to > > > > * be formally responsible for the flavour and help out with mentoring, > > > > * sponsoring, and release engineering. > > > > So the actual quote during the meeting appears to have been: > > > > <stgraber> I guess I'll be talking with slangasek on whether he'd be > > > happy to be a temporary flavour lead for Kylin (or have > > > Foundations do that) until they are familiar enough with > > > everything and have upload rights to do all that themselves > > > > As he and I haven't had that conversation yet, I don't think this has > > > actually been agreed so far. :-) > > > > Can you clarify what it would mean to be "formally responsible" here? > > > Speaking for Foundations we are interested in helping the UbuntuKylin team > > > get up to speed and integrated into the Ubuntu developer community so they > > > can be self-sustaining. I'm a bit concerned that Foundations being > > > "formally responsible" for anything here could get in the way of that > > > goal, > > > by leading people to have conversations with us that they should instead > > > be > > > having directly with the UbuntuKylin folks. I realize there's a > > > bootstrapping question here, and that it's hard to ramp up a new flavor if > > > you're not already an Ubuntu developer, and therefore mentorship and > > > support > > > will be required. But I'm keen to ensure it's understood that this *is* > > > support, not leadership - the real leaders of UbuntuKylin are people in > > > China like Jack, who have a direct understanding of the requirements. > > > Right, this is more a matter of a sort of regular meta-sponsor rather > > than a leader. The point of the UbuntuKylin flavour vs. the current > > Chinese Edition images is that UbuntuKylin is run by people with their > > feet on the ground who know what they're doing directly, rather than > > operating at one remove. > > > We're working our way through https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedFlavors > > here, and this is our first test of that process for the task of > > approving an entirely new flavour. My feeling is that when we wrote the > > documentation we were envisaging something like Lubuntu that had been in > > preparation in the Ubuntu archive for several release cycles before it > > became official, rather than something like this which started only > > quite recently and whose developers don't yet have Ubuntu upload > > permissions and the like. As a result we have a bit of a bootstrapping > > problem with clauses such as "Image has track record of community > > interested in creating, supporting and promoting its use" and "Flavor > > lead identified and responsive though 6 month cycle". > > > I think what we've settled on is that, with support, we can start > > getting daily builds up and running based on where UbuntuKylin is right > > now. They can't yet operate without sponsorship, advice, and general > > advice, and I don't think the TB would be acting responsibly in > > approving a new flavour without making sure that that framework would be > > in place for them. But I think we are all on the same page that the > > goal is for the UbuntuKylin team to meet "Guidelines to become and > > remain a recognized flavor" on their own merits when we review this in > > six months' time. > > > My understanding is that "formally responsible" in Martin's minutes > > should be read as something like "responsible but only for form's sake". > > A better phrasing would be to say something along the lines of > > indicating that the Foundations team has agreed to support the flavour > > until such time as they can fend for themselves. Would you be OK with > > that? > > Yes, when it's worded that way that seems perfectly fine. > > I had a follow-up conversation with Stéphane on IRC, where we concluded that > the next steps for getting UbuntuKylin on its feet should probably be: > > 1) get the correct uploader dev team created in launchpad > 2) add ubuntu-core-dev to it as the only member (for now) > 3) ask the DMB for a packageset with this new dev team as its uploading > group > 4) (Foundations) help the UbuntuKylin developers prepare for applying for > PPU rights for this package set once it exists > > Would this plan meet with the TB's approval? My understanding is that steps > 1-3 are technically very easy, but that Stéphane would like to have the TB's > formal approval before proceeding.
This seems like the right series of steps to me. +1 > Likewise, my understanding is that we don't have approval yet from the TB to > begin building daily images of UbuntuKylin. What further steps are > necessary before we begin doing so? No objections to this either. +1 -Kees -- Kees Cook -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
