Request for MOTU Council to consider Marco Rodrigues (Kmos) not potentially suitable for MOTU
Marco Rodrigues
gothicx at sapo.pt
Tue Dec 11 12:31:35 GMT 2007
Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> as Michael Bienia did in his post, I'd like to add a disclaimer, that
> this does not represent the MC's position, but only my own thoughts.
>
>
> On So, 2007-12-02 at 02:32 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> This has been a difficult mail to try and write. I've struggled with it for a
>> long time and not come up with a completely satisfactory way to deal with
>> this issue.
>
> Thanks a lot for bringing this up before the MOTU Council.
>
>
>> Additionally, I think that frustration with him and the lack of anyone doing
>> anything about it is the major source of the declining friendliness of
>> #ubuntu-motu and the MOTU ML in recent months.
>
> I personally do not agree with this point. Indeed the situation should
> have been brought up in a different forum and dealt with before, but I
> don't think that Marco is the sole reason for unfriendly behaviour in
> the MOTU team. Everybody is responsible for their own bit of
> unfriendliness. I feel this should be part of a separate discussion.
>
>
>> It appears to me that nothing of any significance has changed about the work
>> that he is doing. It is overall of negative value and disruptive to Ubuntu
>> development. The only change is that he's been less active lately. When
>> he's active, things appear to me to be of the same low quality that we've
>> been seeing for months.
>
> I don't agree with this point either. Marco's work still needs review
> and counselling but it has improved a lot over the last weeks.
>
I want to learn more =)
>
>> This is an unprecendented request, but this is an unprecendently
>> distruptive 'contributor'. Before making this request, I consulted with Jono
>> as the Ubuntu community leader to determine the appropriate forum to resolve
>> our concerns. He told me that MOTU Council should evaluate this for Ubuntu
>> (I had thought it would be the Community Council, but he said MOTU Council
>> had the authority to decide this).
>
> Indeed. While most of the MOTU Council's work up until now was related
> to MOTU membership, it's clearly part of the MOTU Council's charter.
>
>
>> 1. That the MOTU Council make a statement that it does not believe that in
>> the near term he has the potential to be a MOTU.
>
>>From reviewing his work for a longer time now I get the impression that
> Marco has the tendency to do too many things at once. I personally feel
> that until this changes, Marco can't become a MOTU - he needs to be more
> careful.
>
>
>> 2. That the MOTU Council make a provision for reconsideration at a later date
>> so that this is not a permanent decision (my though is if he can privately
>> convince two MC members he's deserving of another chance then they can bring
>> it to the community and we can decide).
>
> About your point I like that you're not trying to exclude Marco, but
> leave the door to the MOTU team open.
>
> I have a different idea though. What do you think about this:
>
> * To address your point of disruptive behaviour, Marco will be
> asked to agree to run all of his work by volunteers. I'm willing
> to be one of them.
> * The volunteers will report every two weeks about what's going
> on.
>
I agree with that.
> That way whatever Marco attempts to work on will not disrupt the work of
> others, but still he can contribute and also we'll actively track
> improvement (or lack thereof and have objective data points) and make a
> decision based on that feedback. Maybe we can call this a 'probation
> period'.
>
I always subscribe Daniel Holbach to my bug reports, but if Michael Bienia wants
to review my work, I can also subscribe him too or another MOTU Council Member.
>
>> 3. That the MC ask for all of his Ubuntu related Launchpad priviledges be
>> revoked (he is involved in at least one other project that uses LP, so it's
>> more complicated than just suspending his accoung).
>
> I don't see any worth in this. Marco will have to respect the MCs
> decision.
>
Exactly.
>
>> 4. That the MC tell him he is invited to read the MOTU mailing list and the
>> IRC channel so that he can continue to attempt to learn, but that he is not
>> to give advice/answers or disrupt the activities of developers (asking the
>> channel generically for an answer wouldn't count, but bothering specific
>> developers would). That the MC authorize IRC operators and mailing list
>> admins to enforce this if he does not restrain himself.
>
> We'll have to find a balance between not misleading new contributors,
> not trying to set up a "mischief police" and keeping everybody
> productive.
>
>
> After commenting on all the points of your proposal, I'd like to add a
> few thoughts of my own. Your initial mail was a good attempt at trying
> to address all the problems around Marco. While this is important, I
> think it's even more important to have the general discussion.
>
> Which problems did we face programmatically? What can we do to fix them?
>
> Problems I can identify are:
> * confusion of who's responsible for dealing with the problems
> * lack of integration of Kmos in the team (I'd have expected Kmos
> to ask for more advice)
> * much earlier escalation to the MC
> * <please add points to the list>
>
>
> It's important to draw the right conclusions out of this as it's a
> precedent and has a much higher impact than just this situation. I chose
> the solution I proposed above under the assumption that we use a similar
> process the next time much much earlier.
>
> To me it's more important to learn something out of this incident and
> make proper programmatic changes for the future than trying to cowboy
> somebody out of the team. (I don't specifically refer to Scott's
> proposal with this comment, just as a general thought and advise.)
>
> Thanks again Scott for your work on your proposal.
>
> Have a nice day,
> Daniel
--
Marco Rodrigues
http://Marco.Tondela.org
More information about the Motu-council
mailing list