Wiki Team Launchpad permissions (was Re: Proposal: Create product for each derivative's documentation)

[Emma Jane]

Matthew,

If your goal is to improve clarity, I recommend you remove ambiguity. I have 
already given you several suggestions. Responding point-by-point to your email 
will not see changes made to the final Wiki document. I look forward to seeing 
how you will incorporate my suggestions. Please let me know when the Wiki page 
is updated and I will review it there.

regards,
emma



On Monday 20 April 2009 11:53:34 am Matthew East wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Emma Jane <emmajane at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > On Monday 20 April 2009 11:01:06 am Matthew East wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Emma Jane <emmajane at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >> > Applicants must have:
> >> >  * Signed the Ubuntu Code of Conduct
> >> >  * Contributed at least one significant patch to the system
> >> > documentation which enhances the existing system documentation,
> >> > applies the StyleGuide, and demonstrates the candidate's ability to
> >> > work with DocBook, Bazaar and Launchpad.
> >>
> >> I saw your modification to this on the wiki - I'm not really
> >> comfortable with implying that one patch is enough to join this team.
> >> Obviously how many patches are required will vary depending on the
> >> individual, we'll need flexibility here. Perhaps we could change "at
> >> least one" to "a number", so:
> >
> > I don't like the ambiguity of "a number."
>
> It's intentionally ambiguous - see "flexibility" in my quote above. I
> don't see flexibility as a negative thing at all, what we are doing
> here is clarifying the existing process sufficiently that it is a
> positive improvement to our processes and transparency. That doesn't
> mean that we need to spell out exactly how many patches are required,
> because it will vary for each case. There is no exact requirement, and
> we shouldn't pretend that there is.
>
> Compare with the requirement for Ubuntu membership, which is also flexible.
>
> > What
> > would make sense is to have a point under the "admin" area that says you
> > need to have been a Contributing Member of the documentation team for a
> > period of ___ time, and have accomplished all points under the list of
> > Contributor activities.
>
> I don't think that works. People might want to join the -core-doc team
> without contributing to the wiki, or to join the wiki-admin team
> without contributing to the system documentation, and that's
> reasonable.
>
> >>  * the application is made by posting to the mailing list
> >>  * the team will discuss and reach a view on the application by
> >> consensus
> >
> > Who is "the team"?
>
> ~ubuntu-doc, subject to the below.
>
> > Consensus means *all* of the team agree.
>
> No, it definitely does not. It means the opinion of the group as a
> whole. It gives scope for discussion to take place among the group and
> for people to be convinced by the reasoning of others in the group,
> and for a majority view to emerge. It also builds in the concept of
> meritocracy into the process, whereby the views of those people
> contributing more heavily to the team will tend to have greater
> weight.
>
> This is also explained here:
>
> http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/governance
>
> In particular: "This is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy. We try to
> operate more on consensus than on votes, seeking agreement from the
> people who will have to do the work."
>
> >>  * if any issue is raised with the application which leads it to be
> >> refused, the applicant can reapply when they feel that those issues
> >> have been addressed
> >
> > No feelings, please. :) Change to, "the applicant may reapply after
> > addressing, and providing a solution to, the issues raised by the
> > selection team."
>
> Ok, I don't have a problem with removing "they feel that" from this.
>
> --
> Matthew East
> http://www.mdke.org
> gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF