Request For Candidates: Application Review Board

[Matthew East]

Hi,

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2010 07:29:55 pm William Grant wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 16:06 -0700, Rick Spencer wrote:
>> > Again, I don't recall why backports was ultimately not chosen as the
>> > repository.
>>
>> Perhaps this should be considered before introducing new archives and
>> processes that duplicate others that have existed for several years.
>
> It was considered.  We discussed it at UDS and I thought that was the
> direction this was going to go.  This was not the plan Canonical showed up
> with at UDS and I would be interested to know why they switched back.

According to Jono's original post, this process is not a Canonical
formulated plan at all but has been developed with consultation with
community contributors and the Technical Board. I can see that it has
been discussed at this thread [1] and there also seems to have been a
(private?) meeting about it [2] but it seems to me that the process
that has been followed hasn't succeeded in getting feedback from
people with an important opinion about it.

[1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-July/000312.html
[2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-July/000378.html

Is there anything that could have been done differently during the
process which would have allowed these opinions to be taken into
account before the process got to this stage? (I appreciate that Jono
has said that the process is a "first cut" but it has at least got to
the stage of asking for members of a board, and there appear to be
objections of principle to the basic approach taken.)

Perhaps the ubuntu-devel list should have been copied into the
original discussion with the TB, or the process should have come to
ubuntu-devel beforehand?

-- 
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF