Considering component-specific work when reviewing applications
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Tue Aug 19 22:21:21 BST 2008
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:57:29 -0700 "Jordan Mantha" <laserjock at ubuntu.com>
>On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Michael Bienia <michael at vorlon.ping.de>
>> On 2008-08-19 20:51:20 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>> Michael Bienia <michael at vorlon.ping.de> writes:
>> Or to put it an other way: what makes a person a "MOTU"?
>> - is it the membership in the ~motu team (and it's a coincidence that
>> the team has upload rights)
>> - or is it the upload rights to universe/multiverse (which are granted
>> by being a member of ~motu)
>I think it's basically both indistinguishable from each other. A
>person can have great technical skills (like say a Debian Developer)
>and that doesn't give them an automatic MOTUship, primarily because
>MOTU involves both upload rights and a correct understanding of
>Universe policies and relationship with the Universe community. It's
>these last two bits that are relevant to this thread. What concerns me
>about granting MOTUship to people who don't do any significant work in
>Universe or contribute to the Universe community (in #ubuntu-motu or
>on the mailing list) is that the difference between Universe and Main
>is often more than just which LP access team you're in. There are
>sometimes subtle but significant policy differences. There are
>noticeable cultural differences as well.
>> Perhaps I see a difference where no exists, but it depends on how one
>> defines "being a MOTU". And I currently don't know which view is correct
>> (if there is a correct view), perhaps it's like the "wave particle
>> duality" of a photon.
>/me <3 photons ;-)
Well then I guess I'm left feeling like this is the unwritten "Server Team
need not apply" rule.
When I've brought this up about people who were active in #ubuntu-desktop,
but not #ubuntu-motu my concerns were dismissed.
I feel like it's a clear double standard.
More information about the Motu-council