Liaison to Launchpad

[Jordan Mantha]

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Henrik Nilsen Omma <henrik at canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi Jordan,
>
> I think we are approaching this from slightly different angles. I will
> try to address your concerns below:
>
> Jordan Mantha wrote:
>> 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 find it difficult to grok how you translate a suggestion to open the
> QA-LP phone call to community participation into something that
> "perpetuates the view that Launchpad only listens to Canonical insiders".

That specifically did not, but it's not really helping either.

> You quite clearly state your position here though: "We are trying to
> build a system where the Ubuntu community is able to discuss and
> advocate for their Launchpad needs ..."
>
> That may be your goal, and I agree it's worthwhile, but for the moment
> my goal is simply to help improve the quality of Ubuntu through the
> shared efforts of community and Canonical. I find that's best achieved
> through daily collaboration on technical issues and open communication.

Sure, and a Liaison would do that ...

> The call participation is a simple way to do that, which I think will
> give positive results in a short time. The setting up of an Ubuntu LP
> Liaison triumvirate may also have similar benefits but seems to me to be
> part of a larger and longer term organisational project, and is IMO
> overly formal - but that's just my personal style, not necessarily the
> view of Canonical QA.

It's not very formal at all, it's just getting somebody who's willing
to take on the job of leading the charge.

> Again, the Liaison group may be a worthy goal but I'm not sure everyone
> on the QA community shares your appetite for making QA a testing ground
> for that movement. Our community has generally worked quite well without
> overly formal procedures.

Testing ground? The MOTU having had a Liaison for quite some time.
I've not had any community member other than you and Brian Murray who
had objections. Other people are welcome to chime in here. I'm really
what's overly formal about having somebody to represent our community
to Launchpad and vice versa.

> Granted, 'sitting in' is a poor term because it implies a passive role.
> Whoever joins the call can participate equally with everyone else - make
> suggestions, ask for updates on features, etc. But ultimately the
> Launchpad team (who have to do the work) will decide which changes to
> prioritise - Canonical QA doesn't get to set their agenda either.

"sitting in" is a poor term but I think it'd be fairly accurate.

> I was on a call with Kiko and Reinhard last week about the LP feature
> list - Reinhard and I were there on an equal footing as representing
> users of Launchpad, with Kiko representing it's developers. It was
> positive and productive - we talked about technical issues and got stuff
> done. I think community participation in LP calls could work in much the
> same way.

Precisely, you were acting as a liaison. That's what I, other
community people, and Launchpad devs/management want to see. The
issues are who is being represented, how open the representation is,
and the effectiveness of the two-way discussion. I don't think people
occasionally sitting in on Canonical communications is going to be a
healthy way for the community to go.

> So, I'm not suggesting that the community should simply participate in a
> 'confirmational way' but in the same capacity as the other people on the
> call. This is one communication channel that LP already uses to find out
> about the needs of Ubuntu QA and I am inviting the community to
> participate in that. I don't see why that should get a poor reception.

It is a communication channel that is not community friendly, not
consistent with common Ubuntu practices, and is actually part of the
problems that the Ubuntu community is trying to mitigate. Phone
conversations are rarely used outside Canonical. They are also very
difficult to log. IRC and mailing list are the normal communication
channels in the Ubuntu community. You are asking people to participate
in existing *Canonical* channels, not Ubuntu channels. That makes it
more difficult to establish Ubuntu channels.

> You also say: "LP people like it", by which it think you are referring
> to a conversation with Joey Stanford. Given a future organised group of
> Ubuntu members, who have charted the LP-related needs of Ubuntu and can
> represent us on those, he is of course happy to meet with that group.
> However, the LP bugs team who ultimately has to work on these issues
> tell me that they would prefer to simply extend the existing lines of
> communication. I'm sorry hat you see my suggestion as obstructive - I am
> actually just trying to enhance communications along a channel that
> already works.

Not only Joey, but yeah. They prefer the existing lines over what? I'm
sure they'd prefer the internal Canonical methods, it's not easy to do
things in a community driven way, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't
be done. Part of the problem is that your communication channels
*aren't* working for a lot of community members.

> I'm also inviting a member of the LP bugs team to start sitting in (!)
> on our Wednesday QA team IRC meetings as well. Combined with the call
> participation we will have full transparency and participation for all
> parties in the existing communication channels without designing new
> structures or committees. Let's see how that works.

Well, as I've said before, Canonical QA is welcome to do whatever they
need to do and like to see transparency there. However, that doesn't,
in my estimation, negate the need for there to be an Ubuntu QA Liaison
to Launchpad to represent the community and renew my original call for
volunteers per the original post.

-Jordan