Ubuntu Contributing Developer Application : Marc Cluet

[Cody A.W. Somerville]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Dave Walker <DaveWalker at ubuntu.com> wrote:

>  On 21/06/11 20:44, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>  +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 -1 = +4 - candidate accepted
> +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 +0 +0 = +4 - candidate accepted
>
>   <SNIP>
>
> Hi,
>
> This seems to be a different understanding than what others commented on.
> With this, the minimum requirement of the sum of the votes is +4, not
> overall +1 (minimum standard 4/7 +1'ing) - which is what Laney (and bdrung &
> maco?) suggested.
>

We've never approved anyone with less than an overall +4 or higher. Its
unfortunate that we have confusion. I shall try and discover the logs or
thread where we discussed and agreed previously.


> To clarify, this method creates:
> 5 x +1's and 2 x -1's to be a decline.
>

We've never been in such a scenario before but I feel the outcome is the
right one. If two members feel strongly that an application should be
declined even if the other five members feel it should be approved then I
feel there is sufficient justification to defer the application either to a
later date after addressing the two member's objections or via escalation by
the applicant to the technical board. However, such a scenario is highly
unlikely to actually occur - most applications that are approved do not have
any -1 votes; I feel the board as a whole has a good sense of what we're
looking for most of the time. However, I sometimes feel we're afraid to say
no - there is certainly a number of pressures on the board IMHO to say yes
(most of them good!) - but thats a discussion for another time.

(If the DMB's vote was final and the individual could not apply can for a
long period of time then my opinion would most likely be different.)

 This actually creates a lottery, as 'defer to mailing list post-meeting'
> vote only happens if it is in the candidates favour.  Therefore, attending a
> meeting with minimum quorum gives the candidate best chance of being
> approved.
>

I've actually thought about this and was going to bring this issue up
separately. However, until we decide differently, I think this is fine due
to the clear precedent already set. Besides, we're all aware of who is
applying ahead of time so if we do have an objection and can't attend we can
certainly make it known.

Cheers,

-- 
Cody A.W. Somerville
Release Engineer
Mainstream Systems Team
Custom Engineering Solutions Group
Canonical OEM Services
Phone: +1 781 850 2087
Cell: +1 613 401 5141
Fax: +1 613 687 7368
Email: cody.somerville at canonical.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/attachments/20110621/ff20b6be/attachment.html>