Core Dev Application - Questions/Voting Thread

Fri Nov 10 13:01:46 UTC 2017

+1

While I can appreciate that straight-to-core-dev is not the normal route, I think we, as the DMB, should not become too stringent, so as to be a hinderance for someone that is obviously working hard to further Ubuntu, especially with the correct skills and endorsements.

Good luck!

> On Nov 10, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Lukasz Zemczak <lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok, I think it's time to start the voting procedure. Let's see how it
> goes and afterwards, if unsuccessful, decide if we should maybe
> re-evaluate Balint's application to MOTU instead.
> 
> Please vote +1, +0 or -1 on Balint Reczey's application to become
> Ubuntu Core Developer.
> 
> On 7 November 2017 at 10:58, Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> Hi Balint,
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Balint Reczey wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>>> I realise that others on your team may know you better and thus have
>>>> more out-of-band knowledge in considering your application, which is
>>>> fine. For me though, I think that your application as written falls
>>>> short of general expectations.
>>> 
>>> Before applying I made sure that I met every requirement listed for
>>> Core Dev [1],
>>> but I'm sorry if I'm failing to meet general expectations. If you
>>> could provide clear guidance about the general expectation and
>>> quantify to amount of work I should devote to showing my knowledge I
>>> would really appreciate that.
>> 
>> Sorry I haven't yet replied to this until now. I have felt that I owed
>> you a complete and detailed answer as I explained when I met you in
>> person in late September. Unfortunately I haven't been in one place for
>> very long since your email and so have found it difficult to catch up
>> with everything I'm blocking something on while being on the road, and
>> writing this up as fully as I think you are owed took quite some time.
>> 
>> I've written this from the point of view of the situation at the time of
>> your application in September to try and explain my reasoning as it was
>> then. Given the length of your involvement in Ubuntu, I appreciate that
>> the past two additional months is a significant additional amount of
>> time proportionally, and the situation may well have changed now. I
>> invite you to update us and your application with anything new if you
>> can and haven't done so already.
>> 
>> 
>> Applying for core dev is, I think, somewhat special. We don't have any
>> process for removing someone from core dev. A DMB decision to grant core
>> dev is effectively permanent and it is important that we don't make a
>> mistake in doing so. I'm sorry that your experience of this application
>> hasn't been great, but please understand that your request is to jump in
>> at the deep end, that this is fairly exceptional and that the DMB isn't
>> very used to handling this. I expect to hold any core dev applicant to a
>> higher standard than an applicant to any of the other uploading teams;
>> for an applicant requesting to go to core dev directly, even more so.
>> 
>> In your case, I haven't seen any technical shortcomings about your work
>> that would give me reservations about granting you core dev. However, I
>> feel that I have a very small sample on which to base a core dev
>> application with regards to Ubuntu-specific work, as opposed to one of
>> the other uploading teams where I am less demanding.
>> 
>> In my view, a cultural fit is also important. I want to be confident
>> that decisions you make as a core dev won't upset other developers.
>> Technical disagreements themselves are to be expected, of course; it is
>> how Ubuntu developers proceed in the face of a disagreement that I think
>> is important. And for Canonical employees, understanding and being able
>> to negotiate the distinction between Ubuntu governance and Canonical
>> priorities is particularly important. And these are also factors on
>> which I have little evidence to draw any conclusion.
>> 
>> I appreciate that doing work in Debian where possible is the right thing
>> to do, that you generally do this well, and that doing the right thing
>> in this way can seemingly make it difficult to gain the necessary
>> experience in Ubuntu-specific processes in order to meet the
>> requirements for an Ubuntu uploader application. However the DMB
>> generally works on a "need to unblock" principle. If fewer uploads to
>> Ubuntu are needed because uploading to Debian is preferred, then by
>> definition those uploads weren't blocking on not being an Ubuntu
>> uploader. The DMB will focus on what _is_ blocking, rather than what
>> isn't, and considers applications on that basis.
>> 
>> 
>> From a technical perspective, I'd expect a core dev to have:
>> 
>> A thorough understanding and experience in Debian packaging. I have yet
>> to look in detail, but it seems that this won't be a problem for you,
>> especially with Steve's endorsement :-)
>> 
>> A demonstrated understanding of Ubuntu-specific processes such as Ubuntu
>> package merges, SRUs, the release cycle, milestones and exceptions,
>> proposed migration, the main/universe distinction, MIRs and component
>> mismatches, handling transitions, and the operation of the seeds. I
>> don't necessarily expect detailed direct experience in all of these, but
>> I do expect to see direct and deep experience of at least some of them
>> and a general understanding of most of them.
>> 
>> In addition I would expect a core dev applicant to either: (a) be an
>> already experienced Ubuntu uploader through one of the other uploading
>> teams such as a packageset or MOTU; or (b) present an exceptionally
>> strong application to go direct to core dev. In the case of (a), the
>> previous upload history will allow me to assess the application in
>> detail. Failing that, a string of sponsorships and endorsements from a
>> wide range of existing uploaders that includes some respected names
>> would give me confidence in (b). Without either (a) or (b), I don't have
>> enough to give me the confidence in approving an application that I
>> think I need.
>> 
>> In your case, as you are in the Foundations team at Canonical, I don't
>> think (a) really makes sense for you, as there is no other uploading
>> team suitable for the work you do. So for you it must be (b). But there
>> are some ways in which I think your application is quite weak at the
>> moment; both in your application itself and also in your presence in the
>> Ubuntu development community:
>> 
>> You have only one and a half endorsements (Steve only speaks to your
>> technical skills and specifically excludes Ubuntu-specific processes and
>> sponsorships into Ubuntu) and none from anyone who isn't on your team at
>> Canonical. People tend not to give negative endorsements; instead they
>> generally decline to give an endorsement. So a lack of endorsements can
>> mean one of two things: 1) your peers don't think you should get core
>> dev because they don't think you're suitable; or 2) your peers aren't
>> negative but either haven't got round to endorsing you or haven't had
>> enough experience with your work to endorse you. Note that the DMB
>> cannot tell the difference between the two cases just by looking at a
>> tiny number of endorsements. Help us by getting a wider range of
>> endorsements! For a core dev application, especially for jumping
>> straight to core dev, I think you should aim for five (though I do
>> weight them based on who is endorsing, how diverse they are and how
>> positive they are).
>> 
>> Usually, by the time someone applies for core dev, DMB members who are
>> still active in Ubuntu development have already interacted with them
>> extensively. I barely see you interacting with other developers in
>> #ubuntu-devel or #ubuntu-release at all. I don't see a single email to
>> ubuntu-devel@ or ubuntu-release@ from you ever. This makes a decision
>> challenging for me: how do I know that your future interactions with
>> other developers, particularly in the face of some technical
>> disagreement, will be positive?
>> 
>> Six months with active and heavy involvement in general Ubuntu
>> development might be enough to demonstrate direct experience of the
>> release cycle; six months involvement in Ubuntu development in total
>> with seemingly little involvement does not. So it isn't that six months
>> isn't enough; it is that in your specific case, you don't seem to have
>> been involved enough in general Ubuntu development[1] that I have seen to
>> give me confidence that you have this knowledge or experience.
>> 
>> So right now, though I appreciate your technical skills, my vote is -1
>> for your application as I'd like to see more involvement and evidence of
>> Ubuntu-specific processes. I appreciate your contributions and would
>> like to see you get core dev eventually, but I don't think there's
>> enough evidence in this application as it stands right now.
>> 
>> Here are some objective actions I think you could take to change my
>> mind:
>> 
>> 1) Activity in Ubuntu-specific development tasks, such as some items
>> from my list above, and an update to your application wiki page that
>> make these items explicitly evident; 2) Public collaboration with
>> existing Ubuntu developers; 3) Endorsements from existing uploaders for
>> the previous items.
>> 
>> Given the strength of Steve's endorsement on your techncial ability, I
>> think that a cycle's worth of significant contribution covering
>> Ubuntu-specific development tasks would be far more than enough. But I
>> don't see anything even close to that on your application right now. Am
>> I missing something?
>> 
>> I hope this helps, and I hope that I'll be able to +1 you for core dev
>> soon :)
>> 
>> Robie
>> 
>> --
>> Devel-permissions mailing list
>> Devel-permissions at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/devel-permissions
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
> Foundations Team
> lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
> www.canonical.com
> 
> --
> Devel-permissions mailing list
> Devel-permissions at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/devel-permissions

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/attachments/20171110/43f4db47/attachment.sig>