application: main upload rights for xserver-xorg-video-geode

Martin-Éric Racine q-funk at ubuntu.com
Thu Sep 3 16:44:57 BST 2009


On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Daniel Holbach<daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2009, 12:41 +0300 schrieb Martin-Éric Racine:
>> upload rights to main (xserver-xorg-video-geode)
>> upload rights to universe (cups-pdf, upgrade-system)
>>
>> My wiki page is at:
>>
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MartinEricRacine
>
> A few questions:
>
>      * I must admit I'm a bit confused. In the topic you mention
>        xserver-xorg-video-geode, above it's three questions already and
>        on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MartinEricRacine/MOTUApplication you
>        say that you apply for MOTU plus the packages above. What is
>        accurate now?

After talking to several Ubuntu developers, we came to the conclusion
that mere upload rights for specific packages would be pointlessly
limiting, as I have been maintaining packages at Debian since 2003,
and that MOTU would be better for me. However, one of my pet packages
is in main, so I'd need separate upload rights for that one.

>      * You mention Byzantine bureaucracy. Which examples do you have
>        and how you attempt to improve the situation there?

The distinction between Canonical and Ubuntu is often blurry and
getting a straight answer about who handles what is often challenging.
Having to duplicate existing information and remix it gets tedious
too.  One improvement I'd feel necessary is to merge the templates
used for several processes. For instance, the information I provided
to become an Ubuntu member is nearly identical to the one asked now
for this MOTU Application. Why should we need a separate template
then?

>      * How do you think we can get better at the ratio of bugs that are
>        dealt with?

In some cases, such as the kernel team and X team, recruiting more
full-time developers on the Canonical side would be necessary.
Otherwise, people end up providing pictures of kernel crashes for
nothing, since nobody will ever get around investigating them.

>      * There's a couple of bugs that were not dealt with at
>        https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-pdf and
>        https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/planner - what do you
>        think would make the status quo better?

I haven't been involved with Planner in ages so I won't comment on this one.

As for CUPS-PDF, there have been mainly two issues:

1) Persistent user requests to turn a printer driver into a GUI tool
that allows selecting where to save the PDF file.  I've had to mark
these as WONTFIX and explain how this wishlist bug simply doesn't fit
the mandate of a printer driver. Anyhow, as Till Kampetter repeatedly
pointed out in response, both GTK2 and QT have built-in PDF export
functionality, which pretty much makes the request moot.

2) ApprArmor issues. I haven't found enough documentation on AppArmor
to intervene. Still, it has to be said that AppArmor is poorly
documented. However, I've been in constant contact with Martin Pitt,
who is the main person responsible for AppArmor issues in Ubuntu.  He
has been very helpful is solving AppArmor-specific issues and
suggesting fixes.

>      * Which packages apart from the ones above did you work on in
>        Ubuntu?

I've been involved in CUPS and in [i|my|a]spell dictionaries for
Estonian, Latvian and Russian, on and off.  I also regularly file bugs
and attach patches for everyone else's packages, whenever the issue
seems obvious enough that I can fix it myself.

>      * I noticed that you are active in Debian as well. Are you
>        pursuing Debian Developer membership too? How's that coming on?

I tried ages ago, but I have found that I lack the motivation to go though NM.

Martin-Éric



More information about the Motu-council mailing list