Hi Micah, (Moving discussion to devel-permissions and developer-membership-board; ubuntu-desktop BCCed - please feel free to re-add to CC if you feel appropriate) <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Micah Gersten <<a href="mailto:micahg@ubuntu.com">micahg@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Hi, I noticed there were some new Ubuntu Desktop developers, but I didn't notice see any advocation on the ubuntu-desktop ML or any announcement of these new developers on devel-permissions. Is the policy[1] listed on the wiki out of date? </blockquote><div><snip> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> [1] <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Developers" target="_blank">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Developers</a> </blockquote><div> The delegation of package set permission management to approved development teams is a relatively new process within Ubuntu that is arguably still settling into place. As a change that has significant impact on our development community, its important for us to be diligent in monitoring and gauging its success and being watchful for any road bumps. As such, I appreciate you bringing up your concern and have added a review of the responsibilities and requirements of DMB delegates to the agenda for discussion at the next developer membership board meeting as I feel this is something that is due to checked on. However, as to your question about the policy listed on the wiki for the Ubuntu Desktop Developers team I can only assume that you're referring to Michael Terry and Rodrigo Moya who were both added on the 2nd of November. I agree that it does not appear the full process as described on the DMB Team Delegation wikipage was followed for these two individuals although it is not clear to me if the individuals fail to qualify under the delegation policy to be granted upload permissions by the delegate team's administrators or if only a procedural error has been made. Here are some observations: 1. Teams must maintain a wiki page describing their policy for granting upload access and any special requirements for team membership. However, there is no requirement for the team's administrators to follow the policy they've written. 2. Announcement of applicants to an appropriate publicly-readable mailing list to provide an opportunity for feedback is recommended but not required. 3. "Successful applications, or administrator additions, must be announced to <tt class="backtick"><a href="mailto:devel-permissions@lists.ubuntu.com">devel-permissions@lists.ubuntu.com</a></tt> and to an appropriate publicly-readable mailing list for the team." This *is* a requirement which appears to have been missed. You'll also note that this suggests that individuals may be added to the team at the discretion of the administrators and that an application process is only a recommendation and not a requirement. 4. However, "Applicants must meet the <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#Per-package%2520Uploaders">general requirements for specialist Ubuntu developers</a>" links to <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#Per-package%20Uploaders">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#Per-package%20Uploaders</a> which lists a number of requirements which would be difficult to verify without an application process that requires the solicitation of advocation. Are individuals who are added at the discretion of the team's administrators required to meet the general requirements for specialist Ubuntu developers or are they exempt since they're technically not applicants? As for individuals who *are* applicants, since we have no requirements on the process or policy delegates employ for granting upload access, how can we be sure that the delegates are only accepting applicants who meet the aforementioned standard as required? 5. There is no process or guidelines for how the DMB should handle isolated (like in this case) or habitual violation of the delegation policy either accidentally (which I believe is this case here) or intentionally. Clearly forgetting to announce a new member is different from intentionally abusing the delegation of authority but its also clear that a purely procedural requirement like announcing new members is important for us to ensure is executed as required (to, for example, help prevent fragmentation of the developer community - a realistic possibility described in the original specification for improved archive permissions). Cheers, </div></div>-- Cody A.W. Somerville Release Engineer Foundations Team Custom Engineering Solutions Group Canonical OEM Services Phone: +1 781 850 2087 Cell: +1 613 401 5141 Fax: +1 613 687 7368 Email: <a href="mailto:cody.somerville@canonical.com">cody.somerville@canonical.com</a>