[01:48] <OvenWerks> I didn't think it would be a problem to add in the new wall paper if it's lack is marked as a bug...
[03:24] <ErichEickmeyer> Weeee! Meeting notes out the door.
[03:25] <slidinghorn> ErichEickmeyer: want me to post it on the subreddit?
[07:25] <krytarik> Looking at the meeting minutes from earlier now: "Set, is there anybody besides yourself or Ross that can merge items into the official repos?" - neither of those, alongside with the rest of us, can actually upload packages to the official repos.
[07:26] <krytarik> This is why making any changes to any of our sources is always a little fun currently..
[08:31] <krytarik> OvenWerks: And yes, getting a freeze exemption of any sort on the new wallpapers would be the least of the problems, but the above is the real one.
[09:02] <krytarik> Also, while I agree that it's sort of sensible to call off the LTS, it's kind of ironic because: 1.) we are based on main Ubuntu which will be supported for 5 years, 2.) we are also based on Xubuntu which will be supported for 3 years, 3.) on 16.04 we literally haven't done anything in support of the additional packages we ship either, while we did took part in the point releases of ...
[09:02] <krytarik> ... course, 4.) involvement has just picked up quite a notch, and 5.) users are mostly recommended and tend to prefer LTS releases.  Also, I'm not quite fond of marketing the continued development of the flavor as a "reboot" - while some new stuff might be good in various ways, using that marketing strategy would make it look like something was particularly wrong before and users easily ...
[09:02] <krytarik> ... map that to the past releases too.  And wrt the stuck website overhaul, the reason for this is basically that Canonical IS don't install WordPress themes in the intended path structure - which makes any parent/child theme setup impossible to function until they do.
[09:46] <krytarik> And wrt the concerns regarding MATE Welcome referred to, this would be the context of that: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2018-February/002355.html
[10:00] <krytarik> And the minutes of the meeting referred to in that: https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2018/ubuntu-meeting-2.2018-02-27-20.01.html
[13:49] <eylul> Krytarik: actually from the read of the logs it looks like there is a very clear solution forward as to how to fix the issues
[13:50] <eylul> will check the rest of the logs to see if there has been any follow ups on it but thanks for sharing this. it is useful context. 
[13:53] <eylul> as for the reboot, that I have to disagree. I have never seen reboot imply something is wrong. 
[13:56] <eylul> Actually one argument to doing this is to attract more developers to the project so that we can bring it above the "minimal activity". Maybe we will fail, but that is not reason to not try. I wasn't sure we would get any volunteers at all when we asked for help, and seriously thinking we might need to retire the distro. I didn't happen. :)
[13:57] <eylul> same thing with LTS, just because something was done differently before doesn't mean that we can't review and come up with a new decision. 
[14:00] <eylul> That none of us have access to add things to the official release is a bad one, and something that we need to tackle.
[14:02] <eylul> as for the website I had 2 years to think about that situation. Honestly if they don't we adjust and do it the way they do it
[14:02] <eylul> and then if it breaks we fix it then
[14:03] <eylul> I'd much rather see that work realized than worry about what will happen if they change the upload structure 5 years from now but that's my personal opinion on the topic.
[15:51] <OvenWerks> krytarik: I just wanted to mention with regard to the MATE software boutique. I do not think it was ever thought that we would just use it as is so much as use the framework for our own purposes. In ubuntustudio-installer all packages are in ubuntu repos we did not (for example) link kxstudio repos thogh may have made sense. We are interested in the tool more than what purposes it has been used for somewhere else.
[15:52] <OvenWerks> krytarik: That being said, that reference to a well laid out reasoning for concern as to how it has been used somewhere else will help us set up a similar application correctly.
[16:12] <krytarik> OvenWerks: Well yes, I also think it should be possible for us to either link a different set of third-party repos or none if we wish so - and otherwise I think it's indeed a good idea of a replacement for what we have currently, if it then works as intended.  And regarding the KXStudio repos, I think it's fine to have not made any attempt to make it available as an extra source - as ...
[16:12] <krytarik> ... we know for a fact that it uses to break the user's system very easily. :P
[16:28] <OvenWerks> krytarik: the only "extra" repos should be back ports
[16:31] <krytarik> Yes, that would be ideal, while also not enabled by default of course - but unfortunately nobody put any work in it for a while now either.
[16:48] <OvenWerks> krytarik: I also think even in a backports case, it should be package at a time not, all. By package I mean package+version.