On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 09:13:02PM +1000, Alex Murray wrote: > On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 10:29:03 +0000, Robie Basak wrote:
> > My thinking is along the same lines. I'd like to avoid tying up things > > in bureaucracy, so I think it's fine to leave it to the Release Team to > > decide if it's obviously and uncontroversially aligned, or if they are > > unsure if the Technical Board would agree and therefore need to refer > > it. > > I'd like for these decisions to be documented though. Maybe we could ask > > that the technical-board@ list be copied in with an description of the > > goals of the new image and the Release Team's decision on it? That way, > > we can ensure that we all stay aligned, and minimise pain if we're > > not. > I think this makes a lot of sense - if it is up to the discretion of the > Release Team to refer to the TB then there could be cases that get > missed which would have been beneficial for the TB to be aware of but > for whatever it was not deemed necessary to notify the TB. So instead if > the policy is that the TB is always kept-in-the-loop regardless there > should be less chance of something being missed. > Also given that new images are a pretty rare occurrence, this shouldn't > be too onerous on either team as a result. Thanks, this sounds like a reasonable process that we have consensus about. Where would you all like this documented? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedFlavors/AddingNew or https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedFlavors/NewFlavorProcess ? -- 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/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
