non-MOTU Hopeful contributions (was:: GetDeb Project (Why I participate))

Emmet Hikory emmet.hikory at
Wed Oct 17 23:29:57 BST 2007

On 10/18/07, Peter (Ubuntu List) wrote:
> I believe that your mechanism to have somebody becoming a MOTU is teh
> right way. You have to protect the product from deteriorating and make
> sure your product remains on the high level it is right now.

     I'd agree that it's important to be sure that the quality of
distributed packages is maintained, but I'm also very sure that a fair
amount of the work done to keep the packages in good share is done by
non-MOTUs, through the preparation of small patches for pet issues and
candidate revisions including patches from the bug database, other
distributions, etc.  Our sponsorship process ensures that each of
these changes has been reviewed by an Ubuntu developer prior to
upload, but in many cases (e.g. new upstream versions, resyncs with
Debian, new software packages), the review is mainly to ensure that
the package maintains compliance with our policies, does not break
other packages, and still works after the requested changes have been
applied rather than a deep inspection of the code (especially for
Universe packages).

    I firmly believe that even the most casual contributor's changes
can be applied to Ubuntu in a relatively straightforward way, and that
there are mechanisms in place to try to ensure that every contribution
is reviewed (patch flag, patch tag, bitesize tag, packaging tag,
sponsors queue, etc.).  What I'm less sure about is the quality of our
documentation to indicate this, and whether general MOTU consensus
believes this should be advertised more aggressively, in light of
possible scaling issues.


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list