[15:07] <scott-work> good morning
[15:53] <astraljava> o/
[17:50] <scott-work> i have a question for the channel, probably will shoot it to the mailing list too
[17:50] <scott-work> how do people feel about ubuntu studio being officially recognized as an LTS release for 12.04
[17:50] <scott-work> ?
[17:52] <astraljava> Yes, we can do that. I was thinking about the same when Xubuntu had their discussion and proposal accepted just this week.
[17:56] <scott-work> astraljava: one of my questions is...do we need to?
[17:56] <astraljava> No, we don't need to.
[17:57] <scott-work> canonical will already be supporting the foundation packages already for ubuntu/xubuntu/kubuntu/et al
[17:57] <scott-work> i suppose for appearances it would be nice though....and respect
[17:57] <astraljava> Derivates can choose to, or not to.
[17:57] <scott-work> i don't think we can honestly expect LTS support for particular a/v/g packages though
[17:58] <astraljava> That's the thing, we should be ready and willing to provide that support.
[17:58] <scott-work> right
[17:58] <scott-work> i am leaning to asking for LTS designation for ubuntu studio, unless others are oppossed to it
[17:59] <scott-work> given the way libraries change and the development of things like ardour (and maybe jack) there is an upper boundry condition to our LTS support for a/v/g packages within two years, much less four or five though
[17:59] <scott-work> astraljava: ^^^
[18:00] <astraljava> We could vote for it, if we got decent amount of contributors in one of our formal meetings. That would probably have to happen in the next January meeting, though.