Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client ( available for testing)

Scott Kitterman ubuntu at
Tue Oct 23 14:22:27 BST 2007

On Tuesday 23 October 2007 09:01, Gauvain Pocentek wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 08:19, Gauvain Pocentek wrote:
> >> 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.
> So one mistake and you're already wanting to drop upload priviledges?

I didn't say I wanted that.  I was just pointing out that the processes are 
one way, so I think it's prudent to be careful going through the gate.

> Anyway, I was more talking about the "I blame you on an ML". Maybe this
> could have been discussed in irc queries, in a private mail to the MC
> members

It's to late for that.  The election has already started.  If someone's 
fitness to be on MC is at issue (and personally, I think it is), then in the 
view of the MOTUs who are currently voting is the ONLY place to have that 

> > 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.
> Didn't he sent a mail to ask for tests? But again, I'm not judging the
> facts, but how the whole history turned into some kind of war.

The same mail said he didn't even know how to test it yet.  Personally, I 
don't ascribe to the "Whack the heck, it's only Universe" theory of Universe 
QA.  Developers have a responsibility to do their best to make sure what they 
upload works.  

While some of the language has been harsh, I don't think it's some kind of 
war.  My first post on the topic asked for a clarification of policy.  I was 
suprised the "what the heck, upload it" view got any support at all, but it 
did and so we are clarifying the policy.  I'm glad I brought it up.

> > 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.
> AFAICT you already do that and your judgment is taken into account.

I don't recall being asked who I thought should be nominated to MC.  AFAIK, no 
MOTU outside MC was asked.  These candidates are imposed from above.

> > 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.
> If it's really something that MOTUs feel, it's right the time to discuss
> it in a meeting or in an other ML thread to maybe set up new policies. I
> don't think that the MC has ever rejected discussion of new proposals
> from the developers community.

I don't think you are understanding my point.  This isn't about proposals 
being rejected, it's about trusting the judgement of the people who are 
making the decisions for Universe.

Scott K

More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list