Future of MOTU

[Michael Bienia]

On 2010-03-02 16:27:36 +0100, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 March 2010 00:06:49 Michael Bienia wrote:
> 
> > > ii) Coordinate with all the other Ubuntu Developer Teams to set up a
> > > distribution-wide REVU Coordination team, with representatatives from
> > > each development group helping to ensure that packages of interest to
> > > each area are well tracked, and REVU again becomes considered a useful
> > > tool.  I'd like to call on the REVU Hackers to support this team,
> > > potentially extending REVU to better support tracking of "claimed" vs.
> > > "unclaimed" packages, etc.  The current tags functionality may be
> > > enough, but it may not.
> > 
> > Although REVU is a nice tool, I'm not sure that is fits well in the MOTU
> > workflow. It might work better for other teams where the packager and
> > the team is really interested in getting the package into the archive
> > and (more important) continue to maintain the package (ideally it ends
> > in the package set for that team).
> 
> I my opinion, REVU is a hugely useful tool. A lot of work has quietly been 
> done on the software lately, in large part thanks to RainCT, and I now think 
> it is quite close to ideal: easy to use, and robust.

I didn't want it imply that REVU is not a useful tool. REVU is really
good for the intended purpose (reviewing new packages). But I'm not sure
if that purpose (reviewing/adding new packages) fits well into the MOTU
work which is mostly QA based.

> With REVU, there is a problem if it takes to long to get a package reviewed. 
> The uploaders become unmotivated and disappear. The package is left in the 
> "needs work" state, and that list is even longer than the "needs review" list.

I personally don't do any reviews on REVU for some time now, not because
REVU is not useful, but because I don't believe that's currently the
right way to encourage new contributors to contribute to MOTU.

Other teams might feel different as they review and add new packages
which are of real interest for them and which they continue to maintain.
But I don't have the feeling that the packager or MOTU do really care
about those packages once they are in the archive, and I don't want to
contribute to this package-rot. I believe that we either should do it
right and continue to maintain the packages afterwards so it's a benefit
for all (for user, for upstream and for Ubuntu's reputation) or to be
honest that we don't have that resources to maintain it properly and not
package it at all. That way everyone knows what's to expect and don't
get disappointed later.

Michael