Universe Contributors applications

[Emmet Hikory]

James Westby wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughtful comments on my observation. I'm not
> sure it's an actual problem, but I thought it would be interesting
> to discuss it.
>
> I have a few suggestions, I know this isn't the correct forum to
> discuss policy changes and the like, but I would just like
> to mention them and see if they are completely broken.

    Thanks for these, and moving to ubutu-motu as a more appropriate
forum.  For those not subscribed to the MOTU Council list, the head of
the discussion may be found in the archives (1).

> Firstly, could sponsors be encouraged to drop a note on to
> the bugs that that sponsor fixes from? This would at least make
> it much easier to know who has sponsored you. It obviously wouldn't
> make sense everywhere, and it only really needs to change if there
> was no comment required on the patch.

    Those uploading package candidates are encouraged to follow a
process that includes self-identification in the activity log, and
self assignment in the final bug state (2).  While there have been
some problems recently with the bug activity logs, this information
should be included in the bugmail sent as part of the upload, and so
would be clear to the person preparing the candidate.  That said, I
strongly feel it's more important that people develop relationships
with other community members directly, and don't feel that the set of
people who uploaded one's work necessarily represents the set of
people with which one coordinates.

> Secondly, could sponsors be encouraged to look at the names
> on sponsor requests, and prioritise a few names? I think
> this is probably a bad idea, but it would be a way to increase
> the chances that there are people with a good overview of someone's
> work.

    I'd prefer to specifically discourage this.  It increases the
barrier to entry for new people, and could be a factor in encouraging
the development of cliques.  For those applying to be MOTU who seek
others with a good overview of work, the development of a close
working relationship (perhaps including a willngness on the part of
those who might advocate one's application to review one's technical
skills) is far more valuable in the long term than poking those people
who happen to upload stuff.

> Thirdly, should applications be more encouraged? Leaving it to
> the contributor to decide when they think they are ready is
> a good thing, but there are some people who think they might be,
> but confirmation of that and offers of advocation would encourage
> them. It could be just encouraging people to drop a message to
> a new contributor saying that they would be willing to advocate
> them if they wished.

    This sounds good: it has long been the case that prospective
applicants are encouraged to wait for a couple existing members to
encourage them to apply, but this only works if we do specifically
encourage them to do so.  The number of applications seen is likely in
large part a reflection on how much of this encouragement happens, and
it is only through inviting new people that more hands are available
to do the work.

1: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2008-August/001324.html
, https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2008-August/001343.html
, https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2008-August/001349.html
, https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2008-August/001350.html
, https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2008-August/001352.html
2: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Sponsorship/SponsorsQueue

-- 
Emmet HIKORY