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

Scott Kitterman ubuntu at
Wed Aug 20 12:53:54 BST 2008

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:06:57 +0200 Soren Hansen <soren at> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:28:27PM +0200, Michael Bienia 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.
>I don't understand this logic.
>> 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.
>I don't think I see your point?
>> 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.
>That's really not your decision, is it? If someone applies for upload
>rights to Universe, that's their choice. The barrier of entry is
>significantly lower, and if someone finds that they might make them self
>more useful that way, I'm all for it.

/me too.  If someone has an interest in improving Ubuntu, is technically 
proficient, is believed to be responsible, and wants to contribute (at 
least some) to MOTU, what possible benifit is there to us saying no, you 
have to be sponsored.

If this is the direction we are headed, perhaps we ought to institute a 
minimum number of Universe uploads per release cycle for people to retain 

>> This both allows the applicant to be more likely to be able to use the
>> granted upload rights at the end of the application, 
>I don't think I follow. I think it's "able to use" that's confusing me.
>This discussion started with Dustin's application, so let's take him as
>an example. How is he less able to use his new upload rights if they're
>for Universe? I mean... You're either able to do something or you're
>not, and in this case he is, so I don't see what you're getting at.
>> 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.
>Universe is a big place. If someone has top notch technical skills and
>is willing to put some work into a subset of Universe for which they
>care, I think that's really what's most important. Of course they should
>respect the decisions of the MOTU team, but I won't hold it against
>people if they don't hang out on IRC all day.

Personally I prefer a good sense of team integration, but fundamentally 
this is about should a key get added to a keyring.

With the impending archive reorganization, I think attracting MOTU is going 
to get harder.  Let's not aadvance the process by shooting ourselves in the 
foot now.

Scott K

More information about the Motu-council mailing list