Considering component-specific work when reviewing applications (Was: MOTU Application for kirkland)

Emmet Hikory persia at
Fri Aug 15 15:58:48 BST 2008

Soren Hansen wrote:
> I've ranted about this before, and I still fail to see the importance of
> this. For the purpose of this discussion, I think the component to which
> a package belongs is completely and utterly arbitrary. Packages get
> moved from main to universe and vice versa all the time.  At least my
> own interest in a package is not determined by whether it's in main or
> universe (multiverse is a slightly different discussion :) ). It just so
> happens that most of the packages I care about are in main. If they got
> demoted to universe, I doubt I'd automatically lose interest in them.

   The application is specifically for upload permission to universe,
and so I would think it would make sense to consider the target of
someone's work when considering granting this permission.  In at least
one of the previous cases where someone primarily active in a narrow
area of packages primarily in main was granted MOTU, actions as MOTU
were widely criticised in a later application for core-dev.  If
someone is working primarily in main (or on packages now primarily in
main), I believe that the applicant would be better served by an
application to core-dev directly.  This both allows the applicant to
be more likely to be able to use the granted upload rights at the end
of the application, and helps ensure the integrity of MOTU as a team,
rather than just the set of people who happen to have been granted
upload rights to the universe and multiverse components.

   Of course, this is with the current set of archive permission
rules.  In the event of implementation of Archive Reorganisation (1),
I suspect that the majority of such concerns will be best addressed by
seed-based upload rights for those working on specific sets of
packages, and applications for upload rights to those specific sets of



More information about the Motu-council mailing list