Rescheduling regular DMB meeting day/time

Rafael David Tinoco rafaeldtinoco at
Tue Nov 9 18:01:58 UTC 2021

>>> Usually these are social rather than technical things, such as a lack of
>>> understanding of who is in charge of what. I consider this kind of thing
>>> *more* important than technical ability, because when people know who to
>>> ask and understand how we make decisions, then everything else can be
>>> figured out by talking to people.
>> That is exactly where we are diverging in our votes, lately. IMHO the
>> process shouldn't be tied to "who is in charge", but in "how capable and
>> trustful this applicant is".
> I don't think it should be tied to "who is in charge" either. But I'm
> strongly opposed to an applicant believing that if their application is
> successful then they are being given decision making power for a
> particular package. This is one reason I gave a -1 recently. The key is
> in _understanding how decisions in Ubuntu are made_. If there's a
> misunderstanding here, it's going to result in grief, regardless of "how
> capable and trustful this applicant is".

I agree to this point, but one may just tell what you'd like to hear (or
read) and still have the "I'll do whatever I want" attitude. Thats why
previous work matter more than live interviewing/questions. Based on what
changes were made, who sponsored the changes AND the applicant, comments
given in launchpad bugs, etc, we can diminish the "grief" *more* than just
asking questions live in an IRC meeting room.

PS: I'm also not saying you don't look candidates previous work, just
saying it is usually enough for the concern you raised IMO.

More information about the Devel-permissions mailing list