MOTU Application

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi Laurent,

Am Dienstag 25 September 2007 23:38:21 schrieb Laurent Bigonville:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:12:29 +0200
>
> Stefan Potyra <sistpoty at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > Hi Laurent,
> >
> > Am Dienstag 25 September 2007 16:27:52 schrieb Laurent Bigonville:
> > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:35:20 +0200
> >
> > [many questions and many answers]
> >
> > Great, you gave excellent answers, so I'm convinced that you have the
> > technical skill to become a MOTU. Out of curiousity: Did you answer all
> > questions by yourself or did you ask for help?
>
> All by myself :) Only ask some help to correct my English.

Amazing. 
Please keep in mind though, that you can and should always ask, if something 
is not clear to you. (and actually I thought I had made the questions hard 
enough so that you would ask for help, but this was a prime time for me as 
well *g*).

>
> > Since you're in the telepathy team: How do you think the telepathy team
> > integrates with MOTU? What works well, and what could be improved? Also
> > the telepathy team is using bzr as the main packaging and reviewing
> > environment, right? What do you think is better/worse in the
> > reviewing/sponsoring workflow using bzr compared to for example REVU or
> > using debdiffs added to individual bugs?
>
> Well currently there are a few people active in the Ubuntu TP team, so
> I cannot really speak about the integration with MOTU. I work a lot
> with the Debian Telepathy team (which includes a lot of upstream
> maintainers) and try to be as close as possible with their packages to
> limit duplicate work, I think it's a plus.

Ok, integration with debian is always a plus. Nonetheless, your answer doesn't 
say how you think that the telepathy team is integrated with MOTU. Do you 
think it's more alongside/outside MOTU or rather integrated within it?

> I think that bzr (also used by the Debian TP team) and its integration
> in the launchpad is quite cool. I don't really like REVU, I've always
> the feeling that some of my packages get lost in it.

I guess that's a problem of the process behind REVU. Having a fixed queue of 
possible reviewers (:= MOTUs) will result in the fact that some packages 
(which are low in the queue) will get lost. Can you state what exactly (what 
parts of the integration with LP, what kind of process differences compared 
to REVU) make you think that bzr reviewing/sponsorship is better?

Cheers,
    Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/attachments/20070926/d7024350/attachment.pgp