Developer Application Criteria - Was Re: New Application processes

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:16:20 -0600 "Dustin Kirkland" <kirkland at ubuntu.com> 
wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Robert Collins
><robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
>> I completely agree. MOTU and core-dev membership is a combination of
>> * technical knowledge [for which two key points apply: arbitrary
>> have-done-X metrics don't assess any more reliably than peer assessment
>> of the work done, and the knowledge ages rapidly as technologies change.
>> Packaging of python today is not the same as it was 5 years ago].
>> * trust - which is entirely subjective
>> * fitting in the team - which can be assessed by who objects :)
>
>Okay, so I'll restate my point in another way ...
>
>If there is *no* objective component to MOTU/CoreDev application
>assessment, then I don't think it's fair to make arbitrary,
>*quantitative* criticisms on an application.
>
>Criticisms of the form:
> * You haven't done enough merges
> * You haven't touched enough Universe packages
> * You haven't been a MOTU or Developer long enough
> * You haven't ...  enough ...
>should be invalid.
>
>These things are actually measurable, and we could very well set the
>value of "enough".  If we are consciously choosing *not* to set these
>values, I think it's totally unfair to criticize someone for not
>achieving these arbitrary, dynamic, mystery thresholds.

I completely agree with this.  I think the nicely encapsulates things that 
I've felt were problematic about reviews of several applications.

I've also seen the sane criteria not get applied when it might have been.

In most cases I think these are symonyms for either "I don't know you well 
enough to make a qualitative judgement" or "I don't think you're ready, but 
I'm trying to avoid a conflict".  I think people just need to be 
straightfoward and say what they think.

Scott K

Scott K