launchpad-dev team mailing list archive
-
launchpad-dev team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #09590
Re: RFC: either remove 'Ubuntu CoC signing required' for PPA use, or enforce it consistently
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 14/02/12 10:27, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Matthew Revell
> <matthew.revell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 14 February 2012 10:01, Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Matthew Revell
>>> <matthew.revell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> I'll put my cards on the table and say that my preference is for
>>>> closing the team-member hole and having a separate PPA agreement.
>>>> Obviously that depends on an agreement system that can track more than
>>>> just the one CoC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Are Launchpad's own terms of use not sufficient?
>>
>> The PPA terms and the general LP terms probably are sufficient, as
>> worded. I think we can do a better job of making them visible and of
>> explicitly asking people to abide by the PPA terms.
>>
>
> Oh, I had thought that Launchpad had folded the PPA terms of use into
> its main terms of use.
>
> If LP is striving for ease of maintenance, having one thing that
> people need to agree to in order to use the site is probably better
> than having three such things.
>
> jml
>
>
Hi,
Just to follow up very briefly on this, I noticed today a user
questioned why he didn't have to sign the CoC in order to create a PPA.
He like me and others was under the impression this was still being
done. It was brought to the CC for discussion and it was agreed it was
still to be kept
http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2012/02/16/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t17:48 Has
this since changed and if so when was it done so we can update the
documentation.
regards
Laura
- --
Laura Czajkowski
Launchpad Support Specialist
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQRyv7AAoJELllHW/CZzJaE1kIAJzhdiLnCt0fJjnvcek0g217
U86A+DeXy1tRPjAj4iIE8P3q9mpG+p+ietK/sHnWrNJIuvmyx8plogHH0zF8vpGj
A3fSBqleR7+G4dfEeQH+mmUzUy/KKTIeMNgv5ivVZJydFbnrAvqFSy2+b6QJ4Z+E
pA5fgoKvQqo8+Tw8EFYZXWtwjUgTDGedO459L4i4V7s6ylkAXzyJJtTKQ+g/2qG1
9HzJuuVXs2++RROgDcxItMbWukE1PyZ0MGDmeLTKzU1YkSyosNJt/eWAQT3enXv2
U1djVEMWsGRh7tpCvAv1bbMJXAL7SUsWPfH0CQYAMDa6ZN7NMlLVEG/6bFLHzaY=
=WaVO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Follow ups
References
-
RFC: either remove 'Ubuntu CoC signing required' for PPA use, or enforce it consistently
From: Robert Collins, 2012-02-12
-
Re: RFC: either remove 'Ubuntu CoC signing required' for PPA use, or enforce it consistently
From: Matthew Revell, 2012-02-13
-
Re: RFC: either remove 'Ubuntu CoC signing required' for PPA use, or enforce it consistently
From: Jonathan Lange, 2012-02-14
-
Re: RFC: either remove 'Ubuntu CoC signing required' for PPA use, or enforce it consistently
From: Matthew Revell, 2012-02-14
-
Re: RFC: either remove 'Ubuntu CoC signing required' for PPA use, or enforce it consistently
From: Jonathan Lange, 2012-02-14