Application to join core-dev team for Andrew Pollock (Caesar)

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday 26 May 2008 15:27, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Martin Pitt <martin.pitt at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Andrew Pollock [2008-05-26 12:33 +0200]:
> > > I'll freely admit that I'm not hugely familiar with workflows etc. My
> >
> > main
> >
> > > motivation for wanting to become a core-dev is to be able to directly
> > > fix bugs that we encounter. My immediate priority is fixing small
> > > issues in Hardy in the various point releases, within the constraints
> > > of the SRU process.
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification. For SRU it isn't too hard to work with
> > sponsorship either. I am happy to sponsor your changes, I'll read all
> > bug mail where ~ubuntu-sru is subscribed anyway. This would be a good
> > path towards upload rights IMHO.
> >
> > > If the general consensus is there is a preference for me to become a
> > > MOTU first, then graduate to core-dev, that's fine, just let me know
> > > what the desired course of action is. Alternatively, if you just want
> > > to see more sponsorship runs on the board, let me know. I'd just heard
> > > that for DDs,
> >
> > it
> >
> > > was possible to go straight to core-dev, so I thought I'd test that
> > > hypothesis.
> >
> > With you being a long-term DD I agree that a straight core-dev should
> > be considered. I am not so much fussed about MOTU vs. core-dev, but
> > rather seeing some Ubuntu contributions/SRUs from you, to see that you
> > understand the Ubuntu specific processes.
>
> Okay, I shall plod along with some attempts at fixes to Hardy for a bit
> (how long, couple of months?) and then check back in again.

SRUs need an archive-admin to accept them before they are published in any 
case, so having the attention of an archive-admin as your sponsor is likely 
to not add significant latency to the process.

Scott K