Key Ubuntu teams should have an open process for new members

[Sebastien Bacher]

Thanks for your replies Robie and Steve and for providing insights for 
the teams you are representing.

The details provided do show that some of those issues are being worked 
on which reassuring.

I do feel like one of the core problems hasn't been addressed in the 
replies though so I'm going to go back to it bellow.

Le 14/06/2023 à 20:51, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> Seb has put himself forward as a candidate for the Release Team on behalf of
> the Desktop Team, and I welcome this.  We just have to get our current
> candidates through the queue (Utkarsh, CPC; Paride, QA) before we can
> actually start the process of onboarding him.

While it's good to hear the release team is considering my application 
now, it doesn't clear one of the problem I raised in my original email


The question of whether the release was wanting to consider my 
application is one that was asked first in 2021 (around the time Laney 
left the Canonical desktop team). Until now I never really get a clear 
reply telling me if I was being/would be considered and if there was a 
queue of other applications and the time it could take. It's not even 
clear to me when the team started considering my application. Was it 
back in 2021? Were Paride/Utkarsh in the queue before that? Or was it 
discarded to be reconsidered now?
The question was asked a few times on #ubuntu-release but also also in 
private cross team meetings over the pasts. The replies were around of 
the line of 'it would make sense probably' but never when further.

I had a similar experience with the SRU team a few years ago. At a time 
where I felt like the team was struggling with reviews and that we 
making them busy with desktop review I asked if it would help if I was 
joining to review non desktop upload (and free some time from other 
reviews to help getting our desktop items reviewed). I remember 
discussing it in person at a Canonical event with Lukasz in Frankfurt in 
2020 who said that it sounded like worth considering, I was never able 
to get an answer about that one either.


The issue isn't about those specific cases though, but I think they can 
serves as an example.

If we have someone active in the project who sees a need and want to 
help, believing they have the needed skills/time/energy, shouldn't they 
be able to move toward that goal without ending up hitting an invisible 
wall? Don't they deserve to be told that they have been heard and get a 
'yes/no/maybe/we need to discuss/you need to improve those points'?
If we have people with the skills and motivation who want to step up 
that way they must be valuable to the project. Do we want to risk seeing 
them getting demotivated or leave?
Do we want to be seen as an inclusive project where contributors have a 
fair chance to play a key role one day?

Cheers,
Sébastien