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. Until that time, I don't think > it's a problem. It's consistent with our listing of consultants, and > addresses the problems of the official-ness-or-not of LTS that are why > this thread started. > > > 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) It was said in this same thread that Freexian is already not the only company paying people to do LTS work. See <d0a97cf9b501a46fcb92c5166b3b901b6cfddb7f.camel@decadent.org.uk>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature