Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Chase Douglas]

On 07/27/2011 11:47 AM, Michael Bienia wrote:
> On 2011-07-26 15:53:09 -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
>>  - The pressing need for some standards for what counts as "enough".
>> I've long been frustrated with the fuzzy, moving targets we have for
>> membership and privileges in Ubuntu, and I think we are long, long
>> overdue for some better published standards.
> 
> The requirements for membership didn't change: it was always
> "significant and sustained contributions". Where "sustained" is in the
> range of 6 months and I check if this is fulfilled when processing
> membership applications. But please don't understand that as strict 6
> months. I don't defer someone who is missing one or two weeks for those
> 6 months, but on the other hand I'd have concerns to count it as 6
> months if someone contributed for 2 weeks, then took a 5 month break and
> contributed for 2 weeks again. I like to see around 1-2 contributions
> per month (more is of course welcome; based on an average package
> complexity) to count for "sustained". Of course if someone is working on
> a very complex package I won't insist on that number but like to see
> that the applicant worked on it during that time (e.g. questions on IRC
> or mailing lists about certain problems he encountered).
> 
> But what counts as "contribution" seems to have changed over time. In
> the past (before UDD) my understanding of contribution was sponsored
> uploads to the main archive only (PPA don't count). It didn't change
> much till now and might need a discussion in the dev community what
> should count as contributions (for membership):
> I assume there is no much discussion needed for merge proposals (they
> should count).
> But what about packages in PPA: currently PPA don't count at all (at
> least for MOTU, not sure if they count for membership or not). Should it
> stay that way or should PPA count fully or only under certain
> conditions?
> What about "upstream" contributions? There was some discussion about it
> recently.
> Any other types of contributions I missed?

For me, the "quantity" that you mentioned (1-2 contributions/mo for 6
months) seems reasonable for Ubuntu membership. It's a very general role
and doesn't grant much responsibility. I see it as more of a badge of
honor. I don't have a lot of input to give on the "types" of
contributions, other than that I'd prefer it to be more inclusive than
exclusive, and with leeway for the board to take into consideration
alternative types.

(I also think the length of time of contributions should have some
leeway, but I'm not sure how to phrase my thoughts.)

However, I'm not quite sure on what the policy is for upload rights. The
issue I see is that the upload rights seem to be based on an intangible
"quantity" of stuff, and the "stuff" does not feel appropriate to me. My
understanding is that the "stuff" is experience in packaging. The
"quantity" of stuff relates both to how much packaging one has done, and
how many different forms of packaging one has worked on.

The problem with this approach is that it doesn't fit the granted
privileges. The privilege is the ability to upload to the official
archive. AFAIK, there is no other privilege associated with PPU, MOTU,
or Core-Dev. Essentially, the question is: do we trust the applicant
with the ability to make any changes to the set of packages they apply
for. Trust is orthogonal to skills/experience.

Imo, What we should be looking for is two-fold:

Packaging:
1. Has the applicant properly worked on packages in the past?
2. Is the applicant aware of the limits of their packaging competency?
3. Does the applicant seek out guidance when confronted with packaging
they are not competent with?

(Note that questions 2 and 3 should be answered through endorsements.)

Overall Trust:
1. Has the applicant used previous upload privileges (where granted)
properly?
2. Do endorsements provide positive feedback about the trustworthiness
of the applicant?
3. Are there any past issues that would show the applicant should not be
trusted with upload rights to the archive?

-- Chase