Contributing Developer - Florent 'Skia' Jacquet

[Florent 'Skia' Jacquet]

> Given this, my vote on your application is a strong +1, and I would encourage 
> the rest of the DMB to swiftly +1 as well. Responses inline.

Many thanks :-)

More responses below.


>> Given that the question is mostly asking on the importance of the processes, I 
>> won't

Hey, apparently I failed to finish my sentence here, so let me complete that:

Given that the question is mostly asking on the importance of the processes, I 
won't be detailing the processes themselves, but will emphasize more on why they 
are in place.


> This will suffice; it would be nice to ask for phasing specifics, but meh, I 
> asked for something brief so that's on me. :)

On top of that, phasing specifics aren't particularly simple. Just having a look 
at the `phased-updater` script suffices to show that it can be a tricky part of 
the process. The main idea is to look for a change in the rate of reported 
crashes in errors.ubuntu.com, and if everything keeps going as usual, slowly 
increment the percentage of systems that will install a package until it reaches 
100% and the package is fully phased.


> As a bonus question, what are the guidelines you can use to determine whether a 
> package goes in Main/Universe vs Restricted/Multiverse?
> (Hint, it's ~= the same answer I'd expect for Debian.)

To be in Main/Universe, a package needs to be a "free and open-source software" 
as defined by the policy™. The Debian one is easy to find 
(https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/) but for Ubuntu I struggle to find 
something equivalent. I have this 
(https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FreeLicenses), but it isn't really great.
All in all, nowadays, people more or less rely on list of license provided by 
the FSF or the OSI, and if I were to find a software using a weird license not 
listed there, and not obviously complying to the general rules given in the 
Debian guidelines (https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines), then I 
would probably have to seek legal advice, if the software is important, or just 
reject it, asking the upstream developer to switch to a more common license.


> Yes, very much so! I don't remember the last time I have reviewed a Contributing 
> Developer application, so for everyone else reading, don't consider this a 
> "standard."
Those are really nice words, thanks :-)