New Application processes
kirkland at ubuntu.com
Wed Jan 7 18:07:35 GMT 2009
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Daniel Holbach
<daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> We feel that these changes are going to be a notable improvement and we
> would like to hear your thoughts on them, so we can move to the new
> format real soon now.
Hi Daniel (and MOTU Council)-
Thank you very much for addressing these concerns and putting forth
some suggested changes.
I think what you are suggesting is quite good. Open IRC meetings
every 2 weeks to vote on applications in real time, wiki-based
applications -- that's great.
I mentioned this previously in the 2-hour MOTU plenary session at UDS.
I will again present a controversial suggestion...
I really believe the MOTU and Core-Dev application processes would
greatly benefit from some minimal, objective criteria. It should be
perfectly clear that meeting these objective criteria will not be
sufficient, alone, to achieve MOTU/Core-Dev. However, I think there
absolutely must be something more objective for an aspiring
MOTU/CoreDev to achieve before taking the time/effort to apply.
At UDS, the argument was, "you should apply when your sponsors think
you're ready." I agree with that, however, that's just not enough...
Different sponsors have quite different thresholds and criteria.
A chief concern with my MOTU application was that I had not touched
enough Universe packages. Not to pick on Michael, but his Core Dev
application is currently blocking on the issue that he hasn't been
MOTU for "long enough". I'm sure there are other examples of
applicants, who, like Michael and I, were encouraged by all of our
sponsors to apply, but were met with somewhat arbitrary arguments of
not having done enough XYZ in Ubuntu yet...
I suggest setting some guideline criteria for both MOTU and Core Dev,
in terms of:
* minimum number of sponsored uploads fixing bugs (Main & Universe)
* minimum number of package merges (Main & Universe)
* minimum number of new packages (Main & Universe)
* time spent as an active member of (Ubuntu, Contributing Developer, MOTU, etc)
* perhaps others?
Again, I reiterate, that the absolute number of each of these should
not be sufficient or automatic for attaining privileges. Clearly some
bugs/merges/packages are much harder/easier than others.
But, please, please, please let's add some minority element of
objectivity to the processes.
More information about the ubuntu-devel