informal request

[Emmet Hikory]

Stefan Potyra wrote:
> I'd like to ask every member of you, if you're still up to the task as a
> member of motu-council, as I've seen that applications have been handled with
> quite a delay recently. (and I've very been very sympathic to a recent MC
> call, that showed that you would do s.th. to cut down delays).

    Firstly, thank you for sending this.  I think it is important that
MOTU Council receive such questions if MOTU feel that the work is not
being done, without resorting to indirect action through complaint to
the Community Council or Technical Board.  That said, the involvement
of these bodies may be required if the responses of council members
are not satisfactory to MOTU, and some type of reorganisation is
required.

    Speaking of myself, while I freely admit that I've not had
sufficient time to discharge all of my obligations recently, I do
believe that I'm catching up, and do not believe that work as or on
behalf of MOTU Council has suffered as much as work as MOTU or other
activities within the Ubuntu community.  It is my opinion that I'm now
sufficiently caught up to be able to fulfill my MOTU Council duties
within a reasonable timeframe.

> Oh side note:
> imho, there was a rule to come to a decision (e.g. about an application)
> within 12 days, however I can find this neither in the wiki nor after a quick
> look through my mc mail folder. Is my memory wrong there?

    As Nathan pointed out, this is documented (1).  There is also a
documented requirement that once there was a call for votes, MC
members would respond within 48 hours (2).  During my initiation to
MOTU Council, I was advised that neither of these rules really
applied, nor could they be enforced, and am unsure whether the
documentation is incorrect or the practices of MOTU Council are
incorrect.

    There are two other items of note regarding application processing
that tend to cause delays, and are likely worthy of wider discussion.
The first being that many applications take a long time to receive
feedback from sponsors, and some sponsors for some applications have
indicated that they are not comfortable sending negative feedback to a
request for sponsorship.  I prefer to avoid voting on an application
until all questions are resolved, and all sponsors have spoken, but
where there is silence rather than negative feedback, it is difficult
to take the appropriate decision.  When listed as a Sponsor, I've
discouraged applicants several times, sometimes before the application
email, and sometimes after.  Most of those whom I discouraged are now
MOTU, as they were able to resolve any outstanding issues I had since
my negative commentary.  I'd very much like to encourage all
application sponsors to reply quickly, as it is better to get a quick
"No" indicating one should reapply in a couple months than have an
application take a couple months before receiving "Yes".

    The second being that in recent times, a single negative statement
by a member of MOTU Council has been considered sufficient to reject
an application, which again encourages secret discussion and silence.
I believe it would be better to explicity encourage criticism of
candidates by members of MOTU Council, yet only consider an
application rejected after a quorum of MOTU Council had sent rejection
notes.

    For those either acting as sponsors or council members who are
uncomfortable sending negative responses to an application, I suggest
the following template:

<Applicant>,
    While you've been doing great work in areas A, B, and C, I'd like
to see more work in areas D and E before recommending you for
<applicant status>.  Specifically, whilst working on <thing>, you did
<questionable action>, where I expected <correct action>.  [possible
additional examples: should be restricted to 1-3: there is no need to
list every incidence.]  Good luck with this, and I hope to be able to
recommend you for <applicant status> soon.

    While this is indeed negative, it doesn't tend to show up as
unreasonable in later searches of postings in archives, and rather
shows that the sponsor/council member has reviewed the application and
is making a reasonable decision.

    To foster the presentation of such negative statements, I'd
encourage applicants not to argue unduly with such statements: it may
be that a given applicant will receive sufficient positive
recommendation to override negative recommendations, or that if the
negative statement is from a council member, the quorum decision may
still be positive.  Rather than arguing the case, applicants receiving
such criticism ought try to focus on the areas highlighted, to clearly
demonstrate that the issues mentioned are no longer applicable.  There
should be no stigma attached to the rejection of a given application,
and all unsuccessful applicants are encouraged to reapply after
resolving any issues mentioned.

> Another side note:
> Feel free to call me a coward for sending such a message only after I've been
> recommended by you for core-dev :P.

    Rather, as this is in some part about delays in MOTU Council
decisions, it may be good that this is asked at a time when there are
no pending decisions waiting on MOTU Council.

1: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#MOTU
2: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Council

-- 
Emmet HIKORY