On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 18:59, Christian Ehrhardt < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 4:55 AM Robie Basak <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Christian, > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 01:20:24PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > > > But to truly land this PR eventually I feel it needs one of you > > > representing the TB to either say "Approved by TB" or "Debated, OK, > > > but does not need our deep review and approval". > > > Therefore I'd ask you for your personal review and a discussion to > > > tell me TBs overall stance on it. > > > > Thank you for driving this! > > > > To record my personal opinion, as one member of the TB: > > > > I think it's great that one Ubuntu developer (you) is driving this. It > > should be possible for anyone motivated to drive this kind of change and > > this is a perfect example of that is action - thank you! > > > > Ideally we'd achieve consensus amongst developers and then consider it > > done. > > > > On this matter, given the novel nature and security criticality of the > > matter, I think the TB should have a veto on recommendations > > (technically that's always true anyway), and actively decide upon and > > put its weight behind hard requirements should they be made (again, > > technically the CoC demands decisiveness from leadership over indecision > > so that's also our project's position anyway). Hopefully this would > > apply only weakly to support progress, rather than running counter to > > consensus. > > > > Right now there are no proposed hard requirements, and all the > > recommendations in the PR seem reasonable to me, so I'm fine with > > Christian's current PR. > > > > Subject to TB consensus, I propose that the current PR is therefore > > fine, and the TB should simply thank you for your work and expressly > > support and encourage you to continue on your current path, subject to > > Ubuntu developer consensus, without getting directly involved. We're > > available to help break any impasse, but there doesn't seem to be one at > > the moment. If in the future you wish to propose hard requirements, then > > once we've established Ubuntu developer opinion on such a proposal, the > > TB could help decide on that. > > Thank you for your approval! > > I agree with the rest of your remarks, that is why I reached out to > various stakeholders and security experts upfront (to get it right), > the community (for general consensus and transparency) and the tech > board (to approve). > I further agree that e.g. future imposing of hard requirements should > go through the path of rigor again for the same reasons that apply > this time. > > I've put the other TB members on direct CC to give it a higher chance > to get their input as well. > I wonder - would the majority (>=3/5) acknowledging by mail be > sufficient to land this documentation change without waiting for an > official TB meeting to happen? > I agree with what Robie said, so that brings us to quorum in favour, no need to wait for a meeting. Cheers, Michael
-- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
