Liaison to Launchpad

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday 05 August 2008 17:46, Henrik Nilsen Omma 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".

Because you invite a single community member to take a small passive role in 
an internal Canonical communication forum and declare that sufficient, it 
very clearly indicates that from your perspective there is no need for 
Launchpad to listen to anyone but Canonical for QA input.

> 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.

I agree that's how it is best advanced, but your suggestion for one and only 
one (at a time) person being allowed a role is, IMO, substantially orthoganal 
to that perspective.

> 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 wasn't a call to participation.  It was "to sit in on each of those calls 
to represent the community view and take notes for publication".  Sit is a 
passive function.  I read that as you looking for a note taker to save 
Canonical the trouble.

> 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.

What is the antecedent of 'Our' in the above?  I think it means Canonical QA.  
Canonical QA is happy with the situation, so there's no need to change.  Our 
community (the Ubuntu one) is not so generally sanguine with the current 
situation.

> 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.
>
> 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.

And I think it's great that you would represent Canonical QA in such a way.  
We would like representation too.

> 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.

Ubuntu/Canonical, then yes.

> 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.

That's consistent with my experience of their receptiveness to community 
input.

> 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.

I think we know how not having significant community input works.  I don't 
think further experimentation is required.

Scott K