libreoffice PPU application

[Rafael David Tinoco]

Thank you Robie for this e-mail (with a heads up to us) and I’m very sorry for not participating in the meeting today (doc apt). I have read all the meeting IRC logs, and the 2 applications analysed today.

Rico,

I’m describing bellow my thoughts based on some of what Robie has already said. Robie, sorry for doing that, but many of my concerns were also yours.

> 12:49 PM <rbasak> I think you're going to find yourself in a different position given the nature of your involvement with libreoffice, Canonical and Ubuntu. To navigate this well, I think you need to have a good understanding of how Ubuntu development teams interact and how authority in Ubuntu is delegated. I think your understanding of this is mistaken in a few places.

That is exactly what I thought when reading all the discussion. Ubuntu core devs tend to work in a *very* collaborative way in multiple packages. We tend to trust all technical decisions from each other even if the related packages are not packages we take care of in a day-by-day basis.

I’m not only stating that because of the answer to “how would you deal with an upload from someone else” or “what would you do in case something was solved differently by you and someone else”. I’m saying that also because Rico’s description of the role seemed a lot close to how upstream solo projects are driven (with 1 or 2 maintainers defining project’s future) and not how we do things (with the nobody is is 100% responsible for one thing mindset).

Note: I’m not criticising one way or another, just stating the mindset is different.

And also using some of what Thomas has said (sorry Thomas, but I do agree as well):

> 12:52 PM <teward> Development** is NOT driven by the "Canonical Takes All" approach, as Canonical development alone does not drive Ubuntu package maintainership.

This is the major concern here. I can see that the decision, in the past, for the project not to have solo package maintainers was for some reasons among: 1) we did not have enough people in the first place, 2) we have to always to foment collaboration.

With all that stated, I don’t have a reason to think Rico would _not_ be up to the role but, at this point in time, I think clarifying nuances between the Ubuntu project/role and Canonical team jobs/roles is definitely something that should happen before we re-consider this application.

For that reason my vote is also __-1__ for:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ricotz/PPULibreofficeApplication <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ricotz/PPULibreofficeApplication>

But with a strong desire for this application to be repeated after we clarify all discussed here.

Note: Of course we could have revisited the answers after this was all explained but then we would have missed the opportunity that some lecture is needed for the community role to be given. And, to be honest, I hope that Rico becomes closer and closer up to a point he can help us in other things as well (MOTU / core), hopefully.

Again, thanks all for conducting the meeting today.

My very best regards,

-rafaeldtinoco


> On 8 Mar 2021, at 15:12, Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 06:00:56PM +0000, Robie Basak wrote:
>> Rafael and Simon, please could you consult the meeting logs and then
>> vote? I think they should appear at
>> https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2020/03/08/%23ubuntu-meeting.html but haven't
>> appeared yet. I have a copy from my IRC client if required.
> 
> Rico kindly pointed out that I had the URL wrong, and it's there at
> https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2021/03/08/%23ubuntu-meeting.html
> 
> Robie
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/attachments/20210309/354b640f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/attachments/20210309/354b640f/attachment-0001.sig>