MOTU Application for kirkland [Was Re: Universe Contributors application for Dustin Kirkland (kirkland)]

Dustin Kirkland dustin.kirkland at gmail.com
Thu Aug 14 21:08:08 BST 2008


On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Stefan Potyra <sistpoty at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> We've got a pretty hard backlog on reviewing packages sitting on REVU. Do you
> have any good suggestions in regard to clear that backlog?

There's a backlog of both REVU packages, as well as patches on the
ubuntu-universe-contributors list.

Perhaps a program like 5-a-day:
 * https://wiki.ubuntu.com/5-A-Day

"5" might be too ambitious, but suggesting some number, 1, or 2
sponsored patches per day, and/or reviewed packages.

Also drawing from the bug guys and their success with the Global Bug
Jam, how about a Global REVU Jam, or a Global Sponsorship Jam?

> Also, I'm curious, as I see MOTU being more and more long-distant from ubuntu-
> server. What are your thoughts about that issue?

With respect to my work with ecryptfs-utils, opencryptoki,
pkcs11-helper, and trousers, Universe served as a perfect setting for
incubating these packages.  They existed in Universe through Gutsy and
Hardy.  They were community supported, and available to ambitious
Ubuntu users, though still maturing.

I began a concentrated effort working on the base code and packaging
as a result of a blessed Blueprint from UDS-Prague.  I filed MIRs for
each package, and based on the results of the code audit, made some
functional changes (which, of course, I fed back upstream).  These
packages have been promoted to main, and are part of the Ubuntu
Server.

Universe is a far more resourceful and feature-filled mechanism for
this sort of large-scale project incubation than something like PPA's,
or 3rd party packaging systems (like dag.weers.com and freshrpms.com
in the RH/Fedora community).

There are numerous other packages that are important for the Ubuntu
server, but are still under development; tomcat, augeas, ebox, come to
mind.  Universe provides a beautiful place for these packages to live
and even thrive while we (and upstream) get them in shape for Main.

> I think it's great that you stated that you're a Canonical employee in your
> initial application. Do you think there is a difference between Canonical
> employees and other Contributor's applying for MOTU?

I should hope that Canonical employees receive neither favoritism, nor
prejudice.

I would not expect Canonical employees to achieve automatic, or even
augmented approval in their applications for MOTU or Core Dev.

And I would not expect the fact that Canonical employees are
compensated for their work on Universe and Main to negatively impact
the Council's recognition of that work.


> Finally, we'll be in FeatureFreeze soon. As an attempt to not overload the
> motu-release team (and also that other people might now better), we've been
> assigning delegates for various teams (e.g. Ridell to handle kde-specific
> requests). Assume you were the delegate for ubuntu-server. On what basis would
> you hand out freeze exceptions?

I would evaluate such exceptions on the overall cost-to-benefit ratio
of the change, with my approval threshold steadily rising between
Feature Freeze (28 Aug) and Beta Freeze (25 Sep).


:-Dustin



More information about the Motu-council mailing list