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

[Connor Imes]

Matthew East wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Connor Imes <rocket2dmn at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>   
>>> * contributed more than three significant patches over the course of a
>>> development cycle (6 months), which demonstrated a good and clear writing
>>> style to the satisfaction of the reviewer.
>>>
>>> This means one significant patch every other month. That's not a lot but it is
>>> a minimum. Connor, if you think that makes sense, can you update the Wiki at:
>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/Organisation
>>>
>>>       
>> Done.  If we must have a number, 3 is better than 1, though I would hate
>> to see people come and say, "I did three patches, how soon can I get
>> approved!"
>>
>> I would like to see what Matthew thinks about this.
>>     
>
> I'm against having a fixed number on the number of patches, for the
> reasons explained in my previous posts, and more eloquently explained
> by Nathan in his recent post.
>   
I agree that it is better to not have a fixed number, but I threw one
out there since that is what we had on the page.  As Nathan can vouch
for, we've had such discussions on the Beginners Team as well for
dealing with new members, and have usually chosen not to set numbers in
stone.  We did however through a "1 month" out there as an estimate
though, for how long we felt it took the team to get to know knew members.

>>  I think having the
>> 6 month window in there will weed out most "transients" so we can focus
>> on those who are serious about contributing to docs.
>>     
>
> I agree with the spirit of the idea, but again it's limiting to those
> people who might just arrive in the team and fit right in very
> quickly. What you're getting at is very nicely encapsulated by
> Nathan's suggested requirement of interacting with the team. But I
> think putting a specific time, or a number of patches, on this is not
> going to work. I don't think any additional clarity is provided either
> if we do it, because the reality is that we won't apply fixed
> requirements - we are being clearer and more honest by admitting that
> the process is more fluid and subtle.
>   

That's fine by me, I am just trying to avoid being vague.  I share
Emma's concern with phrases like "a number" being a bit ambiguous. 
Maybe we should just avoid addressing the issue of patch quantity
altogether as part of the "requirements" (or whatever you want to call
them).  This might approached with something like
    * "contributed patches that demonstrate a good and clear writing
style to the satisfaction of the reviewer."

Note that there isn't a defined number, or even a phrase that tries to
estimate one, other than "patches" being plural.

I +1 Nathan's comments, esp. w.r.t. interacting with the team before
granting commit privileges.

-Connor