Nominations: Developer Membership Board

[Bryce Harrington]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 02:04:49PM +0000, Robie Basak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:15:40AM +0800, Onno Benschop wrote:
> > One way to leverage these volunteers is to deputise them and have them
> > participate in the activities as a shadow member.
> > 
> > That way you have the opportunity to train these people and share the load
> > across more individuals.
> 
> I think this is a good idea and is related to a thought I'd had which
> gives me a good opportunity to share.
> 
> When, on occasion, we've had to say no to a candidate, I see that as a
> failure on the part of the DMB. Ideally, by the time someone has
> applied, they're already ready. If it turns out that they're not, then
> we've misled them into thinking they were ready, and that's on us to
> fix. What can we do to adjust the process to prevent that happening next
> time?
> 
> What if we were to change the process so that every applicant is given a
> nominated person to review their current status and make a
> recommendation prior to allocating themselves a regular application
> meeting? I had thought that maybe DMB members could volunteer for this
> role, but Onno's point above is a good one and really any qualified
> Ubuntu developer (who presumably already has the permission being
> applied for) could also volunteer.

The server team has some processes around collectively mentoring our
prospective packageset/MOTU/SRU candidates, including checklists of
skills to master, experiences to gain, and so forth.  The team members
can also provide motivation, moral support, and advice based on their
own experiences in the process.  I suspect other teams have similar
process-fu for helping their members' successes in applying.

Where attention might be most needed is with individuals that want to
engage in the DMB processes but whom aren't themselves members of any
such groups.  They probably face a mentoring deficit that might make
their applications harder for the DMB to process.

The DMB-provided mentor/buddy being suggested here would be helpful in
both cases but may be of particularly added value in this latter
situation.

Bryce

> It would still be the DMB making the final decision in the usual way.
> And the volunteer would only be making a recommendation; nothing would
> stop the applicant from proceeding with an application meeting anyway,
> and they could even decline having this type of mentor if they really
> want (perhaps they are already talking to someone less formally or
> simply don't like this approach).
> 
> But this way we might be able to get appropriate course correction much
> earlier, should that be necessary.
> 
> In a way, endorsements might exactly be such written recommendations;
> the problem tends to occur when an applicant struggles to get someone to
> look at their application as a whole; for example if they aren't well
> connected to other Ubuntu developers, or if each existing sponsor has
> only seen a subset of their work, and so is only providing a partial
> endorsement. So maybe an explicit, nominated person who will look at the
> big picture perspective would help.
> 
> Another issue might be volunteers who push their nominated applicants
> harder than what the DMB requires (bad for the applicant; might put them
> off) or not hard enough (which would then fail to address my problem
> statement). This might therefore need careful calibration and oversight
> to mitigate.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Robie
> 
> -- 
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel