Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Philipp Kern]

Chase,

am Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:04:49PM -0700 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> The other thing that I forgot to mention is that moving to a "trust"
> model of requirements resolves the issue that I face: acceptable for
> core-dev, but not for motu, and thus I'm not acceptable for core-dev. I
> was told that I would be strongly considered for core-dev because of the
> amount of work I've done on packages in main. However, core-dev implies
> MOTU, and since I haven't done any (well, very little) universe work, I
> couldn't be a MOTU. Hence, I'm stuck, and I seriously have no extra time
> in the day to do any universe work.

that does not make much sense to me.  I always understood core-dev as
someone who has a broad understanding of the Ubuntu packaging world
and is trusted to make sane judgements about what he's going to
upload.  Furthermore he's got a better understanding than what's
expected from a MOTU.

So as long as it's clear that you don't randomly upload packages and
screw with the packaging, I don't see why MOTU should be protected
from core-devs.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20110728/6e7acb5c/attachment.pgp>