Developer Application Criteria - Was Re: New Application processes

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday 07 January 2009 13:22, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Dustin Kirkland schrieb:
> > I really believe the MOTU and Core-Dev application processes would
> > greatly benefit from some minimal, objective criteria.  It should be
> > perfectly clear that meeting these objective criteria will not be
> > sufficient, alone, to achieve MOTU/Core-Dev.  However, I think there
> > absolutely must be something more objective for an aspiring
> > MOTU/CoreDev to achieve before taking the time/effort to apply.
>
> Please let's have a separate discussion about the criteria, requirements
> and expectations of new Ubuntu developers. The proposal the MOTU Council
> put on the table is only about how we deal with applications that come in.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>  Daniel

OK.  Now it's a separate discussion.

I concur with Dustin's observations about some people getting caught up in 
arbitrary requirements.  I'd go the other way though.  I don't think there is 
any need for X uploads, Y months as a MOTU before applying for core-dev, etc.  
I think applicants should be judged on what they've done, how well they are 
integrated into the community and trusted to do the right thing, and what 
they potential for future contribution is.

I think that the problem is people making up criteria that aren't actually 
rules and then treating them like rules.  Using Dustin's case as an example, 
how can we possibly set a fraction of uploads that must be Universe 
packages?  "If you have < 30% Universe uploads you may not apply for MOTU and 
must wait until you are ready to apply for core-dev"

People like quantitative criteria because they can be applied without 
judgement and with no perception of bias.  "Everyone has to wait 6 months, so 
it's not unfair we say you need to wait too".  I really think that our 
process is about developers judging the person ready to become a developer 
and anything more specific we try to require will end up being problematic.

Scott K