Considering component-specific work when reviewing applications

Reinhard Tartler siretart at ubuntu.com
Wed Aug 20 12:06:02 BST 2008


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)
>
> Perhaps I see a difference where no exists, but it depends on how one
> defines "being a MOTU".

I think the difference is only important if you also consider the
effects that arise because of that.

One possible effect if we choose the 2nd alternative is that we would
effectivly require for all uploads to become 'full' MOTUs. That means if
we have an applicant from a specialised team (think kernel, server,
desktop team), do we require them to be active in the MOTU community
first? In general we didn't in the past.

Thinking more about it, it seems that we more or less already accepted
that there are Ubuntu Developers that are not strictly MOTUs. Most
commongly they can be found in the more specialised teams that I
mentioned above.

Interesting implication that come up with the plans about the
UbuntuArchiveReoganisation is if e.g. a prospective kubuntu developer
becomes kubuntu member, he will be granted upload permission for
packages in the kubuntu seed. Which is of course part of why we want
UbuntuArchiveReoganisation in the first place.

I expect that after UbuntuArchiveReoganisation the majority of
prospective ubuntu developers will no longer apply for MOTU, but for
these specialised teams. What impact will that have for unseeded
packages? And most interstingly for MOTU: what can WE do about those
'abandoned' packages?

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4



More information about the Motu-council mailing list