"official" MOTU projects (was: Morgue for MOTU ?)

Reinhard Tartler siretart at tauware.de
Thu Feb 9 19:25:50 GMT 2006


Stephan Hermann wrote:
> With all respect, this I'm trying to avoid. Everybody can do what he wants, 
> but let us discuss some ideas and projects and stuff like this while we have 
> a meeting. So we can decide what we can do and what we don't want. 
> Anything else brings chaos. 

Err, there is a bit a chicken and egg problem here. If someone wants to
draw and develop ideas, and show it to others, I don't see much problem
in putting then into the wiki. You raise now this argument:

> To be honest, everything what is written on the Ubuntu wiki is well read by 
> thousands of people every day. And if something is written there, I see it as
> "Oh, they mention MOTU in this text, so it looks like it comes from the MOTU" 
> or substitute any other teamname of Ubuntu with "MOTU".

This sounds like you suggest that he shouldn't do that in the ubuntu
wiki, because that could be interpreted as official
statements/projects/whatever of ubuntu or MOTUs.  Since this happened
several times in the past (as you mentioned this in your mail), it seems
that a wiki is not the best form for coordinating/listing 'official
projects', 'workflows', etc in the ubuntu wiki.  This is how I
understand you. 

You see where this leads to. Do we really need to moderate all ideas? I
don't think so. In the past, we just let people do whatever they wanted.
And it was good. It could be that we grew to big, and we need more
discussion, okay, but if people want to work on things, let them do
that. Even if it is infrastructure.

Perhaps we can solve it with this compromise: If someone wants to
discuss some ideas/projects/whatever, he should write them up in a
subpage of his own wiki page, and not under the MOTU/ namespace. If it
turns out to be a good idea and gets consensus, the wiki page can/should
be moved into the MOTU namespace to indicate that at least some MOTUs
support the idea.

>> > If there is something which is terrible broken with the infrastructure,
>> > we should inform via LP the infrastructure people and ask them to fix it.
>>
>> Right. In general, this works faster than spending ressources on our
>> own. In some cases however, we did craft our own tools because someone
>> had fun doing it. I think this should be rather encouraged than
>> rejected.
>
> Reinhard, the main part of "our tools" is REVU. Which has been approved to be 
> "The MOTU Tool and the Siretart/Sistpoty Fame", the rest is some small utils 
> which helps our work, and normally everybody has written those stuff by 
> himself during his work for different projects. 

Yes, and writing more tools for specific tasks is encouraged. The
multidistrotools written by lucas have become very very useful to me,
and I'm very happy to have them around. Many Kudos to lucas for that!

> And we, or at least those people who were at UBZ, know that REVU is a vital 
> part of the "Infrastructure" of Ubuntu Universe. It's not an officially 
> supported part, as is Universe/Multiverse, but it's quite famous in this way, 
> that REVU2 was officially approved by Mark  
> (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/revu) as SPEC during UBZ. (I'm 
> not writing about the rumours of "REVU3" or integration into LP, while we 
> were drafting the spec with Kinnison). 
> So nobody is stopping anyone from doing something, but actually REVU was 
> discussed, approved by all of us and sponsored by Canonical (Tiber) for the 
> MOTUs.
> And as far as I remember, we started to discuss the REVU application 
> alltogether.

Stefan, sorry, revu was a quick hack sistpoty and I wrote, mainly
because I was that annoyed that I needed to get my packages reviewed
through a wiki page. I can hardly think a more  painful way of doing
reviews.

Thats why I started REVU. I asked sistpoty if he wanted to join me, and
I asked him for advice, because I know that he has excellent knowledge
in designing databases. 

I never asked for permission for doing it. I never asked people to use
it. And I never asked for hardware doing it, I hosted it on my private
server. It turned out that writing it was a good idea, and people
started to use it. During the TB (I wasn't even present at that
meeting but I really wanted to attend) we were offered a server for
hosting it and developing the next version REVU2.

I think this is how things should work. If you want to do something,
just do it. If it turns out to be a good idea, great! If not, well,
there are a lot of things to do ;). 

> So if somebody wants to write/has written a new infrastructure 
> system a la "Morgue"/MOM for Ubuntu Universe, it has to be discussed 
> beforehand, because those parts has to be officially supported.

'Officially' supported by whom? 

Universe/Multiverse is unsupported, because we don't have ressources to
support them properly. We work on it to get it somewhat managable, sure.

> Therefore, if someone wants to develop something like this on it's own, please 
> do :)

Here, I fully agree. If you think you need help, just ask on this
mailing list, just like lucas did. Don't be disappointed if people don't
think it is a good idea, though.

> But don't mention MOTU/Ubuntu or whatever can link to the project, 
> because we are not Canonical, and we can't support those infrastructures and 
> actually we shouldn't and don't want that.

The reasoning is, hm, somewhat interesting. MOTUs have the advantage to
play guinea pigs for canonical for testing launchpad. I think thats
somewhat an honor and a great thing. Nevertheless we are just
'volunteers' and can decide to use whatever tools we think appropriate.

Greetings,
	Reinhard





More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list