PPU / packageset applications and membership

[Brian Murray]

On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 07:16:29PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> Hiya,
> 
> I just added this to the agenda.

I didn't see this email before we had the meeting due to its early time
in my time zone.
 
> ----- Forwarded message from Ubuntu Wiki <noreply at ubuntu.com> -----
> 
> > Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:53:18 -0000
> > From: Ubuntu Wiki <noreply at ubuntu.com>
> > To: Ubuntu Wiki <noreply at ubuntu.com>
> > Subject: [Ubuntu Wiki] Update of "DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda" by laney
> > […]
> > +  * PPU/Packageset uploader applications and membership by default (Laney)
> > […]
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> If you want to think about it before the meeting, it's about whether we
> should give these applicants membership implicitly and only use our
> right to not give membership when it is needed.
> 
> This came up because we forgot to add teward to either ubuntu-dev or
> ubuntu-uploaders (should check if anyone else is in this situation) and
> micahg disagreed with me that he should go straight to ubuntu-dev since
> we didn't decide otherwise. I'm asking us to make a concrete decision.
> 
> I think my position is backed up by the initial mail I sent on this
> topic, which was/is our take on the matter (it was agreed by the group
> at the time IIRC, but if not then anyone could have challenged it and
> they didn't).
> 
> > From: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2013-July/001674.html
> > […]
> > Individuals, when they apply to the DMB for packageset or PPU rights,
> > will be considered separately for their upload access and for Ubuntu
> > membership (the latter being optional, and usually not explicitly
> > requested).
> > […]
> > Since some packages have a greater impact on Ubuntu users than others,
> > we would like to keep the membership requirement in certain cases
> > (albeit retaining the discretion to waive it in exceptional cases; this
> > needn't create onerous difficulties on the part of applicants as such
> > membership considerations will in most cases be implicit anyway).
> > […]
> 
> This says that we split the rights, but that we didn't expect people to
> have to say that they want membership too, and also that we wouldn't
> explicitly membership either unless to grant upload rights without it.

Is there a word missing in the above sentence?

> Basically the default case, unless we say otherwise, should be to grant
> membership. That's what I'm asking us to confirm.

If you mean membership in the "ubuntumembers" team for those who don't
already have it. I agree.

Additionally, reviewing the email thread you provided I believe
ubuntu-dev is the appropriate team for teward as he was already an
Ubuntu member.

--
Brian Murray
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/attachments/20150803/197fe06d/attachment.pgp>