Liaison to Launchpad

[Jordan Mantha]

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Henrik Nilsen Omma <henrik at canonical.com> wrote:
> Jordan Mantha wrote:
>> We ran a bit out of time at the last QA meeting to finish our
>> discussion of the proposal about creating a QA Launchpad Liaison role.
>> I wrote up a little wiki page describing the role:
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JordanMantha/QALiaison
>>
> I'm not sure a QA-LP Liaison is the right model here. The real issue
> seems to be a lack of transparency in the communication between
> Canonical members of QA and the Launchpad team. This is a valid point
> and is something we should fix.

No, that is not the real issue. It is a contributing factor for sure,
but the real issue is a lack of communication and working relationship
between Launchpad and the stakeholder communities it serves. Canonical
QA is welcome to make their internal efforts as transparent as they
like (and I thank them for wanting to do so), but that does not negate
the Ubuntu community's need for liaisons to Launchpad.

> We have just started up a series of bi-weekly calls between the LP bugs
> team and Canonical QA team members - the second call was yesterday. This
> continues the good discussions we have started with them at UDS and
> other meetings. To improve community involvement we would like to invite
> a community QA team member to sit in on each of those calls to represent
> the community view and take notes for publication on the public wiki and
> mailing list.

Well, that is nice, but again I think it's sort of missing the point.
We aren't trying to improve community involvement in Canonical
efforts. We are trying to build a system where the Ubuntu community is
able to discuss and advocate for their Launchpad needs, where feedback
can be turned into concrete and productive changes, where Launchpad
devs/management can approach the Ubuntu community. This is about the
Ubuntu community (which has many Canonical employees as members, btw)
driving their needs, not "sitting in" on Canonical calls.

> This is actually quite similar to the Liaison idea but brings this
> person on board to the same channel of communication we have established
> anyway, and seems to me to give greater insight into the process than a
> separate Liaison position and does not add noo many separate voices from
> the point of view of the LP team. Unlike an appointed Liaison, the call
> participant does not have to be the same person each time.

What Canonical has established in terms of internal communication
channels, even if towards similar purposes, is largely irrelevant or
orthogonal to the channels the Ubuntu community needs to establish.
The insight should be the same regardless, and the purpose is *not* to
add too many separate voices but to help the Ubuntu community have one
voice.

I have been working for a couple weeks now on forming an Ubuntu
Launchpad Liaison Team to pull together the representatives from
varies stakeholder teams and Launchpad development/management and the
QA team is the only place I've come across resistance. IMO, it would
be a shame to have a liaison team with a key missing member, QA.

We also need a liaison who is around enough to establish the
relationships and communication to make this work. Your idea of having
any community member just "sit in" indicates to me that Canonical QA
is not serious about letting the Ubuntu QA community drive its own
needs regarding Launchpad. This is not about Canonical accountability
(I personally generally trust you guys to have Ubuntu's best interests
in mind), but rather about the Ubuntu community standing up on it's
own two feet.

> My hunch is that the participating community members will find that the
> Canonical members generally represent the collective needs of the whole
> QA community quite well in this meetings. But if I'm wrong then this
> meeting participation should help fill the gaps and would also enlighten
> me and others about what the varying needs are :)

Though they may often be on the same page, Canonical *does not*
represent the Ubuntu community. What you are suggesting is to have the
Ubuntu community participate in a merely confirmational way, i.e. it's
all good as long as long as the Ubuntu community doesn't disagree.
That is *not* how a healthy community works. The community (again,
this includes many Canonical employees as members) should drive this
process. It is unhealthy for the Ubuntu community to abdicate its
responsibility to determine it's own needs, opinions, and future
direction. Your proposal does nothing to address the growing concerns
from many Ubuntu community members that Launchpad is developed in a
way that is blind to or ignores the needs of Ubuntu developers and
contributors. It only further perpetuates the view that Launchpad only
listens to Canonical insiders.

I fail to see how this is difficult for Canonical QA to accept. LP
people like it, Ubuntu people like it, is there a compelling reason
not to do it?

-Jordan Mantha