Re-aligning the Ubuntu Developer Process

[Jono Bacon]

Hi All,

I want to propose a few changes to our developer process. Recently there
has been concerns expressed that the process is difficult to get
through, even for people with extensive knowledge.

I am concerned that all the work we are doing to bring in new developers
and mentor those going through the process will ultimately bottleneck at
the approval stage. I am keen to streamline and optimize this process
for success.

Today I feel our process is too focused on showcasing work as opposed to
harnessing reputation - I have always felt that a +1 from a respected
community member holds more weight than a list of bugs fixed on a wiki
page. I believe that adjusting our process to focus on reputation will
streamline it and reduce the risk of good people getting rejected
because their body of work was not in the specific form that a DMB
member expects.

I see two flaws in our current process, and I have simple solutions for
both I would like to suggest:

     1. Ticking Boxes vs. Reputation - our assessment process requires
        that candidates demonstrate their body of work and get
        testimonials from other developers. While the body of work is
        useful, I feel it is more important that we have confidence that
        the candidate will perform responsible work in the interests of
        the Ubuntu project. There has been some cases where merely
        demonstrating the body of work has resulted in great candidates
        getting rejected in the process. I feel reputation is the
        strongest indicator of success (e.g. in my mind, if Colin
        Watson, Scott James Remnant, Martin Pitt, Scott Kitterman, Kees
        Cook or any other core-dev recommends someone for approval as a
        dev, their recommendation alone gets the candidate 90% of the
        way there, as I trust their judgement)
     2. Optimizing For +1, Not -1 - this is subtle but important. Today
        I feel our process is orientated around assuming a candidate is
        not suitable for approval, and that they need to prove their
        capability to the board in the meeting. I feel we should assume
        the candidate is ready for approval and the meeting will assess
        whether that assumption is correct or not, and if not, provide
        areas for the candidate to focus on for approval. By starting
        from a platform of confidence it makes the approval process feel
        more accessible and in favor of success rather than going up
        against a suspicious board.

With this in mind I would like to propose two modifications to the
current assess process for each of these areas:

     1. Core-Dev Testimonials - for each candidate they should gather
        testimonials from core-devs. These testimonials should account
        for the vast majority of the assessment. I believe that if
        someone gets two core-dev +1s for approval, there should be a
        good reason if the DMB wants to reject the candidate.
     2. Brief Core-Devs - we should make it clear that getting a +1 from
        a core-dev is key part of the assessment, and core-devs should
        expect to provide honest and fair testimonials as part of they
        work as a core-dev. We could even provide some kind of
        application queue for those requesting testimonials.

As such, I would recommend that the process would work like this:

      * A candidate wishes to apply to be a dev. They outline their body
        of work in a wiki page and request testimoniald from core-devs.
      * In the meeting the DMB look at the testimonials first and if
        there at least are two core-devs who +1 the candidate the
        application should be considered approved unless there is a good
        reason to suggest this confidence is unwarranted.
      * If a candidate can't get testimonials from core-devs, it is the
        DMBs discretion if the candidate should be approved.

I believe that optimizing this process around reputation (in the form of
+1s from core-devs) will help streamline the approval process, and I
have confidence that core-devs won't arbitrarily +1 people as they would
not want to cast their own reputations in doubt. This should result in a
high-confidence level, and ensure that good people with decent bodies of
experience seen by other community members get approved.

Thoughts?

	Jono

-- 
Jono Bacon
Ubuntu Community Manager
jono(at)ubuntu(dot)com
www.ubuntu.com : www.jonobacon.org
www.twitter.com/jonobacon : www.identi.ca/jonobacon