Expiry policy for flavor developer team membership

Erich Eickmeyer eeickmeyer at ubuntu.com
Tue Jul 16 23:44:19 UTC 2019

Hi all,

On 7/16/2019 2:42 PM, Robie Basak wrote:
> I'm interested to hear what the flavour leads and teams themselves think
> of this proposal. Though the rationale sounds good to me, I wouldn't
> want to commit without giving them the opportunity to provide feedback,
> in case there's anything we haven't considered.
Flavor lead checking in. I think 6 months is quite a bit frequent, and 2
years might be a little too lax. Perhaps 1 year? I think that would be a
decent compromise.

That said, I think whatever is decided needs to apply to more than just
the flavor devs. For example, as I look at the MOTU memberships[1], I
cannot help but wonder how many of those people are even participating.
I know this, that they're certainly not doing what they signed-up to do
since the active people working the sponsorship queue[2] are VERY, very
few as far as I see it, especially since I have a new package[3] waiting
in the sponsorship queue for 3 weeks without so much as a comment[4].
That tells me those individuals aren't active anymore and that their
MOTU memberships/privileges should probably be expired and,
consequently, more MOTUs should probably be sought after.

I realize that I don't have any say whatsoever, I just know how I feel
that we have 127 MOTUs with very, very few of them active. This makes
getting packages into the repositories a bottleneck which, with 127
MOTUs, this shouldn't be the case. This tells me that the majority are
inactive. I realize there's also the Debian route, but in my recent
experience, that appears to be even more of a bottleneck, even when you
have a DD lined-up to sponsor, you send the ITP, and there's no action

Just my 2 cents. I am ok with implementing whatever the powers-that-be
come up with, but I feel as if it needs to be applied to more teams that
just the flavor teams.
> Is there a definitive way of contacting them for feedback? The best I
> can think of is ubuntu-release@, but that doesn't seem quite suitable.
> Or just ubuntu-devel@?
Probably sending the proposal to the individual ${FLAVOR}-devel@ lists
probably would be the best, easiest route.


[1] https://launchpad.net/~motu/+members
[2] http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/
[3] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1834241
[4] It's an extraordinarily simple package and I took great care in the
packaging, therefore the review should be simple.

Erich Eickmeyer
Project Leader
Ubuntu Studio


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20190716/9ff7fe78/attachment.sig>

More information about the technical-board mailing list