Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing

[Steve Langasek]

Hello,

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:36:19AM -0600, Micah Gersten wrote:
> The Developer Membership Board has started a vote to restaff for the
> four members whose terms are expiring. The Developer Membership Board is
> responsible for reviewing and approving new Ubuntu developers. It
> evaluates prospective Ubuntu developers and decides when to entrust them
> with developer privileges. There are seven candidates:

>     Benjamin Drung (bdrung) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BenjaminDrung
>     Bhavani Shankar (coolbhavi) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BhavaniShankar
>     Cody Somerville (cody-somerville) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CodySomerville
>     Dmitrijs Ledkovs (xnox) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DmitrijsLedkovs/DMBApplication
>     Iain Lane (Laney) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IainLane/DMB2013
>     Scott Kitterman (ScottK) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScottKitterman
>     Stéphane Graber (stgraber) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/stgraber

At the January DMB meeting, there were two applicants, both of whom were
rejected.  It doesn't say that on paper; on paper it says that Adam Stokes's
application was changed to "contributing member" during the meeting and was
approved.  But the long and the short of it is that two people with a
substantial history of contributing to Ubuntu in their respective domains
applied for upload rights in January, were recommended by existing Ubuntu
developers, and were denied upload rights by the DMB.

I understand that the DMB won't always agree with their fellow Ubuntu
Developers about whether a particular applicant is ready for a particular
uploader status.  But I do think it's important that when the DMB disagrees
with the developers who are recommending someone for uploader status, there
be transparency about the reasons for this disagreement.  Currently, the
wiki says:

  It can be difficult to know when you are ready to apply for uploader team
  membership.

  (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess)

That's certainly true, but I think this is something that the DMB has a duty
to correct.  Frankly, I think there's no reason that Adam and Björn couldn't
have been ready for upload rights by January, *if* the DMB's expectations
were made clearer.  If there were documented standards that at least tried
to be objective, people who are aiming to get upload rights can be working
to those standards in advance, instead of being told in the DMB meeting that
the work they've been doing doesn't tick the right boxes on the DMB's
invisible checklist.

So my question to each of the candidates is this.  As a member of the DMB,
what would you do to remove this uncertainty around when people are ready to
apply, reducing the number of rejections (whether those are hard rejects, or
soft "redirects") at DMB meetings?

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20130130/d7f964bf/attachment.pgp>