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

Reinhard Tartler siretart at tauware.de
Sat Feb 11 13:09:16 GMT 2006

Oliver Grawert wrote:
thanks for joining this discussion.
>> I strongly disagree. For me, debian is the most successful distribution
>> on this planet, measuring the numbers of developers and users.
>> Comercially supported applications is not one of the core goals from
>> debian. You can read them here: http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract
>> Again something we don't have, but I think we should at least think
>> about something comparable.
> *cough*, *cough* did you read the CoC before you signed it ??

I did read it very carefully. It was an important reason for me for
joining ubuntu. Debian does not have something like the CoC, which gives
guidelines how a developer should behave. The Debian social contract and
the DFSG in particular are different, with good reasons.

>> > For me, volunteers are coming and are going. It's a continous flow of "=
> human=20
>> > resources" over time. Is that bad? No.=20
>> This is how maintaining universe currently works. This is to me mainly
>> because we have serious problems with the workload, and need as many
>> volunteers as we can get.
> this is how it will go on as well ...=20
> there are lots of documents on the website and wiki that describe the
> maintainership and its processes, why do we need additional stuff
> (managing volunteers ?? huh ??) see for example:
> http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes/newdev

Thats not my point. I think the processes we currently have for be
granted Maintainership is one of the most importants reasons for

> there were BOFs and discussions at every conference about processes and
> maintainership and many manhours went into getting a good consensus ...
> not that i'd say it cant be improved, but why dont you start off the
> existing stuff and improve that instead of starting all from scratch ?
> you all start crying i fthere is a single line of duplicated coding work
> in packages, why doesnt this apply for our documents as well ?

Once again, my point was not to rediscuss our processes from scratch. We
currently do have procedures and guidelines. I do not want to change
them, because in the past they have proven to work.

This is really not my point.

> i must adimt that share stephans disappiontment about the mood in the
> motu world that went from having fun together fixing packages to useless
> (imho) discussions about more rules and politics ...

It is fun fixing packages and doing a good service for our users. I
agree, yes. However it is very disappointing seeing broken packages and
a universe with over 1000 diverged packages and the insight, that with
the current numbers of developers and current mood this will end into a

This is a technical matter, no matter how often you call that

> motu is something very special and unique in the OSS world please dont
> let it become a second debian with tons of rules and policies as long as
> there is no need for that (and i really dont see the need yet), we are

Yes, I fully agree. ubuntu, and espc. ubuntu/universe is unique, and it
should be. However we are still quite young: Warty shipped with a
completly unsupported Universe. Hoary was the first release with a team
doing coordinated work on the universe component. During breezy, I think
it was most fun: We had a great team, people were available and we could
rely on each other.

What has happened since then? There were big flamewars on debian
regarding ubuntu, and people like lucas and me started warning of a
unmanagable universe with no hope in bringing it back to shape. Is this
politics? Perhaps partly, but thats not my point.

> ubuntu is known for good ideas and improvements that others adopt, lets
> stay this kind of innovator for the OSS world, lets not just copy off
> others models but improve the world with what we do where we can and if
> we cant, lets go on with the working models we already use.

I agree. Lets get back to work.


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list