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

[Martin-Éric Racine]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Holbach<daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 03.09.2009, 18:44 +0300 schrieb Martin-Éric Racine:
>> 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?
>
> The application template for a Contributing Developer (which is Ubuntu
> membership approved by MOTU Council) is identical to the template for
> per-package uploader, MOTU or core-dev.
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers

Interesting. People only mentioned the sort of info they wanted to
see, back then; they didn't point to a specific template. In a sense,
I'm thankful, because you're pretty systematic about pointing out such
things. :)

Of course, several things at Ubuntu that were previously informal have
become more formalized over time, which is a good thing. The drawback
of formalizing things is that they inexorably become caught into
procedural pedantism. Thank goodness, at least, procedures are usually
well-documented at Ubuntu, even though it sometimes takes ages of
following through the maze of renamed or obsolete documents on the
wiki, before one finds the right answer. ;)

Would anybody object, then, if I merge the contents of
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MartinEricRacine/MOTUApplication into
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MartinEricRacine and use that as my generic
application for various things?

>> 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.
>
> There's a number of bug reports in
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-pdf that don't fall into
> these categories and have no answer. I'm not apportioning blame, it's
> just that you criticised how Ubuntu does not receive enough bug love and
> that https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#PerPackage requires
> "effective bug management" of the packages in question.

UPP indeed does and if you look at my work for Geode in main, you'll
find that I'm also active upstream, directly committing fixes into the
X.org git repository, whenever applicable. You'll also find that I've
been maintaining backports via my PPA as a staging area for pending
SRU.

For CUPS-PDF, I'l openly admit that I got bored with the endless
stream of requests similar to type 1 and type 2. I've thus enjoyed a
rather egalitarian collaboration on these with Till Kamppeter, who is
equally involved in CUPS-PDF on the Ubuntu side, largely because he
contributed many of the betterments that were later merged into Debian
and he knows them best, and also because, since he is the upstream
maintainer for several other printing-related packages, he possesses a
top-level perspective that I sometimes lack. It's a nice synergy.

You were asking about what other packages I work on and I'd say that
much of the work I do is completely in the shadows, sometimes reduced
to simply reminding Till or Martin Pitt about a pending CUPS issue, by
discussing possible solutions with them over IRC, solutions that, most
of the time, they are the ones to commit and release later on. I don't
live for taking the credit and I'm okay with that arrangement, even if
it means that my contributions might sometimes be less obvious.

>> I tried ages ago, but I have found that I lack the motivation to go though NM.
>
> It just surprised me as you are maintaining these packages in Debian for
> so long already. :)

I suppose that, since my interest is mostly in maintaining a few
specific packages and doing that well (if we momentarily discount my
habit to attach patches to bug reports I file against other people's
packages), the whole idea of jumping through hoops and enduring the
hazing that is so typical at Debian, just to get around acquiring
upload privileges for a few packages, wasn't my cup of tea. :)

Martin-Éric