New proposal for Ubuntu Backporters Team Charter

[Robie Basak]

Hi!

Thank you for your time on this.

On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 04:22:13PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > So I think we are starting to get to the crux of the difference in
> > > viewpoints from the TB to the backporters team. Due to the past history
> > > of some perceived dysfunction within the backporters team, I feel it is
> > > important to try and set some more specific expectations for how the
> > > newly rebooted team would function - particularly to an outsider wishing
> > > to contribute.
> 
> The problem in my opinion is that also your (rbasak's) original proposal
> is also "useless" for an aspiring contributor.  Also, what's
> "contributor" here?  Somebody wanting to propose a backport update is
> really not served by these documents (either Charter or Policies)...

I wonder if it's worth first discussing what the text would actually be
used *for*, since your reply suggests to me that we might not have the
same view on this here.

I see the (my) proposed text as a point of reference between the
backporters team and the rest of the project, but generally only for use
to guide the backporters team in defining their own policies, procedures
and documentation, cases where it was unclear what their
responsibilities are, or in case of some kind of unhappiness (eg. we
hope it won't happen, but a repeat of the previous team being unable to
review submissions at all).

What I *don't* expect it to be used for directly is for anything to do
with aspiring contributors. I would expect that to be covered by
documentation that the backporters team controls and defines as they
feel appropriate. Similarly you'd be free to adjust that documentation
as the need arises, rather than having a "locked in" document that
requires negotiation with a board to have changed.

I think aspiring contributors would still benefit from having things
clearly defined in this text, because that clarity would then filter
down into your own processes, procedures and documentation. But I
wouldn't expect them to actually _use_ the formal text directly (unless
they were asking for changes in those processes, or wanted to escalate
something).

Robie
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20230301/6eeb833c/attachment.sig>