Considering component-specific work when reviewing applications

Reinhard Tartler siretart at
Tue Aug 19 19:51:20 BST 2008

Michael Bienia <michael at> writes:

>> > This leads me to the question: what the main point on becoming a MOTU?
>> > - is it the next reward for Ubuntu members who work hard on improving
>> >   Ubuntu (development)? They have good technicals skills and we trust
>> >   them enough to make them MOTUs (and allow them to upload directly)
>> > - or is it: they have good technicals skills and we trust them enough to
>> >   work unsupervised and allow them to upload directly (make them a
>> >   MOTU).

I'm not really sure that I understand the actual difference here.  We
generally have some certain expectations from propective Ubuntu
Developers (in no particular order, and certainly not exhaustive):

 . they are technically skilled to maintain packages
 . they are experienced enough to review and sponsor patches from other
    prospective contributors
 . they are recognized in the existing MOTU community
 . they are familiar with ubuntu development policies and procedures
 . they agree to the ubuntu philophy (think code of conduct, etc.)

In some ways granting membership to a contributor that fulfills the
expectations I outlined above is a reward, true. AFAIUI, we currently
grant membership if the motu-council (and previously the technical
board) is convinced that an applicant fulfills the expectations.

For ubuntu-core-dev membership, the bar is a bit higher. We generally
expect core-devs to have even more experience with packaging, but what
that means in details is left rather fuzzy; and that on purpose so that
applicaptions can be considered and argued more flexibly. I haven't
noticed any problems with that approach since the start of the ubuntu
project, so I don't think we need fixing here.

In the light of UbuntuArchiveReorganisation and seed based upload
permission, priority might shift, and I reckon that the individual teams
(kubuntu, xubuntu, etc) will clarify their expectations for new
members. It might also mean that MOTU and motu-council in paricular
might review their expectations about new developer applications, if we
don't want the MOTU team to be recognized as "the team maintaining
packages nobody cares about" [1].

[1] because elseway, the package would have been seeded in some way.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

More information about the Motu-council mailing list