Developer Application Criteria - Was Re: New Application processes

[Bryce Harrington]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 11:04:35AM -0800, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Dustin Kirkland <kirkland at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jordan Mantha <jordan.mantha at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't think that's necessarily a logical conclusion. You're saying
> >> that if the +1/-1 of a MOTU Council member is based on a subjective
> >> decision that they can't use objective data in making that decision.

I didn't read Dustin's comments that way.  I took it to mean, if the
council members are making decisions based on objective data, they
should be utilizing that data more consistently and predictably.

I should point out that my own opinion on this is probably not very
valuable, as I've not been much involved in the MOTU process.  I'd also
add that in my own application and those I've sponsored, I never saw a
problem with how decisions were being made.  However, I'm assuming from
the existance of this thread that others have seen an actual problem,
and so all my comments should be taken as a completely outsider
viewpoint.


If I understand his point correctly, it's that if I tell person A, "You
need to hit the ball into the outfield 10 times before you can be on the
team", and person B, "Nevermind hitting the ball, I like you, you're on
the team," that's inconsistent.  It could also undermine the
establishment of team mentality - A will always wonder why they had to
meet this arbitrary critera when B didn't.  Even B may feel some
inferiority because they got in through favoritism rather than proving
themselves like A.  It could affect the other teammembers too - if you
know all your teammates have proven they have the same level of
confidence, you'll have more trust in them than you would otherwise.

The point (as I see it) is not so much whether you have to hit a ball so
many times to get on the team, but rather if such criteria are being
applied, that they be done consistently and predictably.  If I want to
become a MOTU and I saw that person A had to do 10 ball hits, and I
practice up to 12, then if I apply and they surprisingly ask me to do
*20*, I'm obviously going to be upset.  And on the other hand, if they
ask me to only do 5, I might not be upset but might wonder WTF is up.

Where I think Dustin and I differ slightly, is he'd like to see the
number more explicitly stated, whereas I'd favor being more hand-wavy
and say, "Demonstrate that you know how to play ball", and provide some
generic tips on how one would do that.

> My issue is that threshold may be different on a case-by-case basis
> and from MC member to MC member. For instance a lack of experience in
> packaging from scratch could be compensated by a wealth of merge/sync
> experience and vice versa.

This is my thinking exactly.  If someone is a great pitcher, it may be
okay if they can't hit the ball as well as others.  They know how to
play ball.

Or, someone may not have the greatest game play skill, but they have
great team spirit and their presence on a team just makes that team pull
together and work that much better.  That individual may not be able to
hit the ball well, nor pitch, but when they're playing, the team wins much
more often than not.  Even in this case you'd still expect them to
demonstrate that they know how to play.

> > I have suggested that "a minority component" of MOTU/CoreDev
> > applications be based on some objective criteria.  In place of such a
> > process, I also believe that Bryce's suggestion of a "workbook" would
> > mostly serve the same purpose.
> 
> My problem is that this "minority component" will become the majority
> component because it will be the only objective criteria. Bryce's
> suggestion is probably helpful but we need to be careful about how we
> word/suggest it.

This would also be my concern.  When you have to make a decision on both
factual and emotional data, and the facts are clearly stated, it can be
easy to be mentally lazy and make a snap decision on just that set of
data.  But I think this is not an argument against having clear facts,
but rather an argument against being mentally lazy.  ;-)

But I definitely agree that care in phrasing is important.  "You're not
going to be tested on any of this, and we certainly don't expect you to
know *everything*, but we think the more familiar you are with the
following, the better a MOTU/CoreDev you'll make..."

> A final point that I'm wondering is how often are people rejected
> because of purely objective criteria? It seems to me that most people
> are rejected based on things more like:
>   * immature understanding of Ubuntu
>   * doesn't play well with others
>   * lacks overall packaging experience

As someone who has not really been involved with the MOTU decisions, I'd
love to see some data on this.  Not names or specific instances, just a
summary of like, # times someone was explicitly critiqued/judged on
{time involved, amount of uploads, packaging tasks done, etc.},
regardless of whether they ended up being accepted or not.

If it turns out that Dustin is correct, that a significant number of
judgements are being made with objective data, I think it strengthens
his argument that care be taken to do this in a consistent, uniform, and
predictable fashion.  Or if it turns out to truly be a rarity then maybe
it indicates that those few instances should just be investigated and/or
corrected if possible, and sponsor docs be updated to clarify this point.
 
> Only the last one would have any chance of being objective but I don't
> think that's even possible. You have things like # of packages
> uploaded, difficulty of packaging tasks, # of mistakes, etc. What I
> worry about it people picking the easiest things they can find in
> order to meet some "standard" and then using that to leverage
> themselves into MOTUship.

Heh.  "Your karma must be >this high< to ride this attraction."

But really, it should be pretty transparent when people do that.

If someone gets in this way, again it's more an argument against mental
laziness than against having clear facts.

Bryce