Plan to reform the Ubuntu Backporters Team [was: Proposal: sunset the backports pockets]

[Dan Streetman]

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:11 PM Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Iain,
>
> Perhaps I see the situation differently from you. From my perspective,
> this is an extraordinary intervention "from above" by consensus from
> Ubuntu developers. The backporters team has been unable to act for an
> extended period of time, and when threatened with closure, nobody from
> the team has been able to volunteer to continue in any role, let alone a
> leadership role. Others _have_ volunteered; therefore the team is being
> replaced.
>
> Nothing stops previous team members from continuing, subject to any
> requirements from _new_ team leadership, but they haven't even
> volunteered to continue. From my perspective they have effectively
> resigned through their extended absence.
>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 02:24:31PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> > > Assuming the change is made, following my proposal detail, I intend to
> > > remove everyone from ~ubuntu-backports and add Dan as its sole admin,
> > > and then let Dan take it from there (I assume he will add Mattia as a
> > > team member, and maybe Iain).
> >
> > To be honest, I think you could - and I'd prefer it if you would - leave
> > this up to the team, especially if there are newly active members.
>
> From my perspective, this would be as if people who have neglected[1]
> matters for years, and effectively blocked progress, would be retaining
> their ability to block progress. This is why I'm against your
> suggestion.
>
> IMHO, previous team members who have not participated in this thread
> should therefore no longer have the status of being in the team. I agree
> with you to leave membership up to the team, but I might differ from you
> in that I want this to be up to the *new team*, not people who have
> their name attached but haven't done anything for the team in multiple
> years and are not stepping up to do so now. IMHO the old and inactive
> team members should, due to neglect[1], have no more say than the wider
> set of Ubuntu developers in this matter. I value their experience and
> opinions, but the final decision making should no longer be up to them
> due to their extended absence. IMHO, any previous backporters team
> member who doesn't want this to happen has had multiple opportunities to
> step up or speak up, and has not done so.
>
> You, Iain, are an exception because you have actually participated in
> the conversation. Thank you :)
>
> Further IMHO, I think having old inactive members there is harmful. For
> example, for years people have been blocked on backports under the
> illusion that the team exists and team members just need to appear to
> review and approve their stuff. In reality, the team ceased to exist
> years ago; it was just Launchpad that was behind. If the team membership
> in Launchpad had been empty accordingly, we'd probably have sought to
> address the situation much sooner.
>
> So, my proposal is to empty the team membership, _once_, as part of this
> revitalisation. IMHO, only those volunteering to do the whole task of
> resurrecting the backports process (so far that's just Dan) should
> really have a decision making power here, since they are the only ones
> actually taking responsibility. Then the new team members will manage
> the team membership list as they feel appropriate.
>
> > I'd like to talk with the new team about this, but I'm personally not
> > interested in participating in the current process. It's broken by
> > design IMO. I'd be interested in participating in creating a reformed
> > process and more than happy to explain to the team what I consider to be
> > wrong with the way things are now, but I'll probably not be leading any
> > reform efforts myself just for spoons reasons. On that basis I'd be OK
> > stepping down from being an administrator, and possibly leaving the team
> > altogether, depending on what the active members consider their
> > priorities to be.
>
> Thank you for staying involved! Under my proposal I would expect you to
> end up being re-added, but I think that would/should be entirely up to
> the new team to decide. Specifically this is because if you're unable to
> help drive the reform, then that's fine but I think that also means that
> you cannot also be a decision-maker as to whether you get re-added or
> not. That would be up to those who _are_ driving the reform, since part
> of their remit and responsibility is to drive the process for team
> membership.
>
> >                   Again I'd prefer to work that out with the team rather
> > than the new owners doing this 'from above'.
>
> IMHO, that ship has sailed. The "from above" approach has become
> necessary because the existing team and team leadership has not managed
> to make any progress on this themselves; nor did they engage when Thomas
> volunteered to join the team to help. You can't have it both ways here.
>
> I expect Dan to work with you, and Ubuntu developers at large, to figure
> out a process that works for everybody. But I don't think he should be
> tied by the need to seek approval from team alumni who have neglected
> their responsibilities for years[1]. I think that one way to make this
> clear is by explicitly removing old, inactive team members from the team
> in Launchpad. This makes it clear that decisions will be made by the
> *new* team. Opinions from old team members are valued but they should
> not have any decision making powers. Their inability in this area is
> exactly why this change is happening.
>
> If Dan thinks otherwise then my view is moot, of course, since he's part
> of the new team that determines membership for themselves. However I
> don't think he should be burdened by social obligations of keeping old
> and inactive team members around because they might be offended at being
> removed, and so I think now is the best time to start afresh. Once the
> team works out how they want to manage team membership, he can then add
> or re-add anyone as appropriate.

Thanks Robie, and I do generally agree with everything you've said.

My expectation is that at the first public (irc) meeting of the new
team, there most likely won't be any attending members from the 'old'
team, except Iain, so I'm not expecting that to be an issue - if
others *do* show up with opinions, then there is discussion that will
have to happen, but judging by the lack of any response besides Iain,
I'm not at all expecting it. If my assumption is right, then I think
the 'new' team will be able to reach agreement pretty easily to remove
all (or most) of the inactive members, and then have a discussion on
who will be on the team and how it will operate going forward. As
there has been relatively little to no movement on the backports queue
uploads recently, I don't feel like there is any specific urgency to
either remove previous members or to come up with a new process, so
I'm fine just waiting for the first scheduled meeting to work out all
the details, including the membership in the new team.

>
> Robie
>
>
> [1] I hope "neglect" doesn't come across too strong. Everyone has their
> own priorities, and when they're volunteering their time (whether
> themselves or through an employer), we're grateful for what time they
> can commit, not ungrateful for what they cannot find the time to do.
> However, from the perspective of the team as a whole, I think that
> "neglect" is the only fair way of describing what has happened, and it's
> important for us to acknowledge this in order to make progress.