Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing)
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Tue Oct 23 13:42:16 BST 2007
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 08:19, Gauvain Pocentek wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:39:21 +0200 Daniel Holbach
> > <daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >> Am Dienstag, den 23.10.2007, 15:20 +1000 schrieb Sarah Hobbs:
> >>> Michael, what in hell were you thinking?
> >> This kind of language is not necessary. It does not help coming to a
> >> solution.
> > While in general I might agree with you, while the language may be a bit
> > strong, it's a perfectly reasonable question from a member of the
> > community to a candidate for MOTU Council and should be answered.
> > Scott K
> (This is not a direct answer, I'm talking about the whole thread)
> The beginning of this thread was raising an interesting point, and it
> turned into a personal attack against Michael, on a public mailing list.
> I really don't think he diserves that (nobody does).
> This is more unacceptable to me than any possible broken package in a
> repository which exists so that such packages can be tested (people who
> enables this repo *know* that breakages can happen).
Actually not always true. We had a bad svn upload to -proposed that got a
fairly stunning number of dupes. A lot of people run with it on not
Although harshly worded, I don't think it was an attack. I think it's a
serious question that ought to be answered by someone who's put themselves
forward as technically versed and mature enough to be setting policy for
> Please let's try to avoid that kind of behaviour, there are smarter ways
> to deal with problems in Ubuntu.
What do you suggest? Once someone is a MOTU (or elected to MOTU Council)
there isn't AFAIK any process to deal with removal.
Personally, I was stunned by the discovery that any MOTU would upload
something to proposed that not only had they not tested, they didn't even
know HOW to test. I've done good work with geser in the past, but this case
just doesn't strike me as being an example of good judgement at work.
I think, particularly as we have no voice in who gets nominated, that us
regular MOTUs should be able to closely question the people that the CC/TB
have decided are to be the masters of the masters so to speak. This is a one
time decision and it needs to be right. Personally, I'm more worried about
getting the best MOTU council possible to make good decisions for our future
than I am about a few ruffled feathers along the way.
More information about the Ubuntu-motu