[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Confusing our users - who is supporting LTS?

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:58:47AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:02:57PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > I meant that we would say that stable is supported by the security team.
> > > And instead of saying that Jessie was supported by the LTS team, we
> > > would say supported by Freexian.
> > 
> > I would object to that, on the grounds that even though Freexian is
> > currently the only company paying people to do LTS support, we should
> > not encourage the idea that they have a monopoly on doing that.
> In my view, that is a situation we could address at the time that we had
> more than one company doing LTS work.

Yes, but then there's the important matter of wording.

A hyptothetical "Extended Debian support by Freexian" is a product of
Freexian that just happens to use Debian infrastructure.

In contrast, a just as hypothetical "Extended Debian support by the ED
team (financially supported by Freexian)" is a product of Debian that
just happens to be supported by Freexian.

I would be fine with something along the lines of the latter, but not
the former.

(the exact wording that we end up deciding on may be different, but you
get the point).

> Until that time, I don't think it's a problem.

I think that if we end up writing something which "assigns" LTS to
Freexian, then the possibility that some other company doing LTS work
diminishes. That is not something I want to see happening.

> > If some other company decides that they are not happy with Freexian,
> > then they are currently able to just start their own competing project
> > and do things differently. This is a good thing.
> They would still be able to do so even if we were listing Freexian as
> being the only entity supporting LTS (which is a statement of current
> fact after all): I don't think the hypothetical competing company would
> be too bashful to ask us to update the website. And we could pre-empt
> the situation by making a clear statement as to the project's position
> on listing Freexian (essentially codifying what I'm writing here,
> somewhere)

Yes, that'd definitely be necessary.

To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy

  -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard

Reply to: