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 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
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
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.
More information about the Ubuntu-motu