Developer Application Board

Matt Zimmerman mdz at
Fri Jul 17 12:12:23 BST 2009

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Scott James Remnant schrieb:
> > Over time, the new board would like to work with the MOTU Council to
> > expand its membership so that it can deal with applications to the
> > "universe" and "multiverse" components of Ubuntu as well, or the
> > equivalent package sets after archive reorganisation.
> As I see it, the current process the MOTU Council is using
> ( was discussed and improved
> through several iterations and is working really out well. It has been
> the biggest responsibility of the MOTU Council.

What Scott means here is that (particularly in the context of the archive
reorganization), there will be a need to generalize the developer membership
process, and it's likely that the proposed Board would take an active role
in defining how that works (together with the MOTU Council).

> I would have imagined that the new Board would be there to fix this
> issue and have expected some kind of merger, but maybe I'm just
> misunderstanding things.

I think you may have misunderstood (and the pronouns in Scott's email are a
bit confusing).  He suggested the idea of expanding the membership of the
proposed Board, and enabling it to deal with "universe" and "multiverse"
(and whatever they become) as well.  This implies the potential for a merger
of sorts with the MOTU Council, though there is no concrete proposal here.

> > The new board will use a private mailing list to discuss applications
> > ensuring the confidentiality of discussion between the applicant and the
> > board.  This will prevent any critique from becoming a matter of public
> > record, which has been raised as a concern where (for example) a future
> > employer searches for information about an individual on the web.
> > 
> > Applications will be accepted by e-mail to this private mailing list in
> > much the same form as the wiki pages currently used by applicants today.
> Why not stick to ? I
> really think we should aim for one process for developer applications.
> One wiki template to fill out for any kind of application, one Board and
> a public meeting.

I agree we should aim for a unified process.  I don't think Scott was
suggesting that we discard the existing process, just clarifying the key
points of how the board will work.

> I'm with Matthew East on the issue of transparency, I personally feel
> that the "quick summary" is not enough. I get lots of questions by new
> developers who want to know "Am I ready yet? Can I apply already?"
> Having public applications and application meeting logs available helps
> them a lot to understand what's expected of them.

I think it's essential to have candor (board members and sponsors saying
what they really think) as well as sensitivity (not embarrassing or
criticizing applicants in public) in the process.

> A minor point, but I don't like the name to be honest. "Developer
> Application Board" might confuse people to think they could go there and
> discuss if f-spot should really replace gthumb. "Developer Membership
> Board" (similiar to the Regional Membership Boards) might work, but I
> guess there's more creative people than me. Also the abbreviation DAB
> doesn't work: it's a German beer I don't like much. :-)

I think this is a great suggestion, and support changing it to Developer
Membership Board.

 - mdz

More information about the Motu-council mailing list