Patch Pilot Report 2011-08-03
bug 819679 - Sync subtitleeditor (universe) 0.39.0 from debian experimental (main). Builds fine, ACKd bug 819774 - Please sync zsnes 1.510+bz2-1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main) FTBFS, assigned to reporter, unsubscribed sponsors gedit-plugin 3.1.2 merge approved, pushed, uploaded Bug #813428 - [needs-packaging] aisleriot waiting on a new upstream release, unsubscribed sponsors lp:~paulbrianstewart/ubuntu/oneiric/visualvm/813165-formattingTypo/+merge/68469 patch looks good, but was wondering about the semantics of the words, asked mpt for review New upstream release, gearmand 0.23 failed to build, also, newest upstream is now 0.24, set to incomplete, assigned to submitter, unsubscribed sponsors Saw 2 merge proposals for typo fixes in stable releases kicked off thread on ubuntu-devel about the issue Bug #820721 - Sync parrot 3.6.0-1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main) builds on amd64, sync ACKd Bug #803468 - [Need Packaging] New upstream release 0.143 looked good, uploaded -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 17:46, Clint Byrum wrote: > I think peoples' time is better spent elsewhere.. but if somebody in > the community wants to spend time correcting the spelling mistakes, > our policy is not really clear as to whether or not this is ok. But beyond just spending their own time, they're also creating work for archive administrators and reviewers who now have to approve, verify, etc each patch. Since AA time is limited, (and is, as you said, better spent elsewhere) typos like that seem frivolous to SRU by themselves. -- Luke Faraone;; Debian & Ubuntu Developer; Sugar Labs, Systems lfaraone on irc.[freenode,oftc].net -- http://luke.faraone.cc PGP fprint: 5189 2A7D 16D0 49BB 046B DC77 9732 5DD8 F9FD D506 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 05:29:07 PM Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 04:06:26 PM Chase Douglas wrote: > >> On 08/03/2011 12:44 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote: > >>> I think it's really up to the DMB to decide how they want to run their > >>> application process. I think you should let them figure it out with > >>> our input. There appeared to me to be a very different ratio of > >>> liking/not-liking your proposal based on if someone was employed by > >>> Canonical or not. I would suggest that given the current level of > >>> pressure on the membership boards by various Canonical people that this > >>> would be a particularly good time NOT to be pushing about trying to > >>> force a process change on them. > >> > >> Please, stop assuming input here has anything to do with Canonical. I > >> can state unequivocally that my input has nothing to do with who I work > >> for. I am but an Ubuntu developer here. If it helps, I've used my > >> @ubuntu.com email address to make it even more clear :). > >> > >> I also do not believe anyone is trying to whitewash things for > >> Canonical. I want to point out a few things: > >> > >> 1. Many Canonical employees started out as Ubuntu members before they > >> were employees. I doubt they are now trying to subvert a community they > >> were and currently are a part of. > >> 2. I have not seen anyone at Canonical apply for membership levels that > >> did not make sense for that individual. I am unaware of anyone being > >> granted membership based even in part on their status as a Canonical > >> employee. > >> 3. There are many Canonical employees who do not participate in Ubuntu. > >> I have not seen any of them try to subvert the Ubuntu community. > >> 4. I have no numbers here, but I believe if you look at the percentage > >> of top Ubuntu contributors you will find that many also happen to be > >> Canonical employees. If you filter them out, you may be forsaking > >> valuable input from a large portion of the community. > >> > >> Every once in a while there may be a case where an individual Canonical > >> employee has stepped out of bounds. I feel I can guarantee that it was > >> not done to harm the Ubuntu project or community, but the end result may > >> have been just that. Where I have seen that happen, I believe the > >> parties have taken responsibility and corrected their actions. However, > >> I see no reason to believe there is a systemic problem. > >> > >> If you believe there is a problem, please bring it up in whole in a > >> separate thread. Comments like this do nothing but poison the > >> conversation. Please judge things on their merits, not on who the > >> contributor is employed by. > > > > Much of this entire discussion was started by Canonical employees wanting > > special case treatment for upstream work sponsored by Canonical. It was > > a Canonical employee that proposed to the Tech Board, without even > > consulting with the DMB first, to change how the DMB could assess > > applications and restrict their ability to deny applications. Multiple > > members of multiple boards have complained they feel like they are > > subject to harassment from Canonical managers if they don't approve a > > Canonical applicant. The agree/disagree ratio on your proposed change > > in how to change the application process was roughly reversed depending > > on if someone was employed by Canonical or not. > > > > I think there is a serious split between the Canonical and non-Canonical > > parts of the community right now and trying to pretend it doesn't exist > > doesn't help. I think it is broad and systematic. I don't believe it's > > intentional. I do believe it's a problem. > > If that's the case, then I am unaware of it. I will take your word for > it, and would tend to agree with you if what you have stated is full and > accurate. I apologize for any unbeknownst mistakes in my > characterization of the relationship between Canonical and Ubuntu. > > However, please understand that I have nothing to do with any of that > (other than ancillarily dragging myself into the upstream contributions > discussion without knowing anything of it). Everything I read here on > ubuntu-devel from Canonical employees appears to be unbiased to me. If > you see bias, please feel free to call it out, but I haven't seen > anything. However, do not assume that the intentions of everyone who > works at Canonical are biased, and please evaluate input on the merits > of the input alone. I don't think bias is the right word. I think there is a tendency to have a different perspective. I don't think anyone is being evil or disingenuous. I think that different perspective causes us to have different views of what the project is and thus what is an appropriate criteria for membe
Re: SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions
Excerpts from Micah Gersten's message of Wed Aug 03 12:55:09 -0700 2011:
> So, there are a couple merge proposals right now for control file
> description typo fixes for natty:
> https://code.launchpad.net/~bones/ubuntu/oneiric/gnomebaker/fix-for-818364/+merge/70234
> https://code.launchpad.net/~bones/ubuntu/natty/radiotray/fix-for-722886/+merge/70107
>
> The package has either been removed or fixed in the dev release, so
> that's not an issue.
> So, something like this would seeming be fine in conjunction with
> another SRU, but wouldn't qualify on its own for one if I understand
> correctly.
> I'm wondering if there should be a queue for these fix only with
> something else, or if we should just close won't fix (see SRU policy).
>
Hmm, SRU policy may need some clarification.
See: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
Specifically the "When" section, quoted below:
> When
>
> Stable release updates will, in general, only be issued in order
> to fix high-impact bugs. Examples of such bugs include:
>
> * Bugs which may, under realistic circumstances, directly cause a security
> vulnerability. These are done by the security team and are documented
> at SecurityTeam/UpdateProcedures.
>
> * Bugs which represent severe regressions from the previous release of
> Ubuntu. This includes packages which are totally unusable, like being
> uninstallable or crashing on startup.
>
> * Bugs which may, under realistic circumstances, directly cause a loss of
> user data
>
> * Bugs which do not fit under above categories, but (1) have an
> obviously safe patch and (2) affect an application rather than critical
> infrastructure packages (like X.org or the kernel).
I actually think the language on the page needs a little work. Must *all*
bugs be high impact? Or are they ok if they don't fit into that "category".
Both of the mentioned merge proposals have an obviously safe patch,
and affect only an application, not anything in the "infrastructure".
I think peoples' time is better spent elsewhere.. but if somebody in
the community wants to spend time correcting the spelling mistakes,
our policy is not really clear as to whether or not this is ok.
I'd propose that the policy be changed to be more clear on this matter.
Something like this:
Stable release updates will, in general, only be issued in order to fix high
impact bugs.
This includes all bugs fitting into the following three categories:
* ... security
* ... severe regressions
* ... data loss
{note no bullet for this paragraph}
Low and medium impact bugs which (1) have an obviously safe patch and (2)
affect an application rather than critical infrastructure packages, will be
considered when fixed in conjunction with high impact fixes. The following
exceptions are made to the high impact rule explicitly:
* ... LTS hardware
* ... Commercial partner software
* ... FTBFS
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 02:34:31PM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 02:01 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > > On 08/03/2011 01:45 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >> Hash: SHA512 > >> > >> On 08/03/2011 04:36 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > >>> On 08/03/2011 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:23 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > > On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas > >> wrote: > >>> What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply > >>> this way, or is it only under specific circumstances? > >> > >> Split votes go to the mailing list to try to find enough +1s > >> after a meeting. Board members can email in advance a +1/-1 if > >> they have no questions (either because they didn't to start > >> with or because they already talked to the person) > >> > >> The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in > >> email was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. > > > > Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is > > the policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously > > would rather do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a > > Monday morning, hoping there's a quorum :). > > In my experience with various projects and communities, review > processes that are done entirely by email or bug queues are > generally less responsive, not more responsive. Regular time-based > meetings are a useful social motivator. And, as an applicant, a > multi-week email thread picking over their credentials is likely to > be far more daunting than a quick discussion on IRC. > > But, this is a decision for the DMB, or if they choose to escalate > it, a decision for higher community authorities. They understand > the concern raised by several community members (including you), so > it's time to step back and allow the community process to operate. > >>> > >>> Maybe my problem is that I'm asking in the wrong forum or the wrong > >>> way. I have this legitimate question for the board, so how do I ask > >>> it? I asked Mackenzie because it naturally flowed in the email > >>> thread, but she's just one member of the board, so it might have > >>> seemed I was singling her out. > >>> > >>> Do I simply need to sit and wait for a response on this thread, or do > >>> I need to ask somewhere else? I really don't mean to badger with > >>> questions on the list, it's only because I can't find any information > >>> on how else to interact with the board. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> -- Chase > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> You can contact the whole DMB at: > >> developer-membership-bo...@lists.ubuntu.com > >> > >> Or add an agenda item for our next meeting: > >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda > > > > Ahh, thanks! I'll subscribe to the list and send any more emails about > > this there. > > Hrm, that list is private and I can't join. There must be some way to > communicate with the board other than by adding a meeting agenda or > hoping that an email you send to a private list is attended to. I would > also like responses to questions I ask be available to others, and a > private mailing list doesn't allow for this. CC the mail somewhere else too. -- Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ la...@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ la...@ubuntu.com ] PhD student [ i...@cs.nott.ac.uk ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 02:01 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 01:45 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA512 >> >> On 08/03/2011 04:36 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: >>> On 08/03/2011 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote: On 08/03/2011 12:23 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas >> wrote: >>> What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply >>> this way, or is it only under specific circumstances? >> >> Split votes go to the mailing list to try to find enough +1s >> after a meeting. Board members can email in advance a +1/-1 if >> they have no questions (either because they didn't to start >> with or because they already talked to the person) >> >> The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in >> email was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. > > Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is > the policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously > would rather do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a > Monday morning, hoping there's a quorum :). In my experience with various projects and communities, review processes that are done entirely by email or bug queues are generally less responsive, not more responsive. Regular time-based meetings are a useful social motivator. And, as an applicant, a multi-week email thread picking over their credentials is likely to be far more daunting than a quick discussion on IRC. But, this is a decision for the DMB, or if they choose to escalate it, a decision for higher community authorities. They understand the concern raised by several community members (including you), so it's time to step back and allow the community process to operate. >>> >>> Maybe my problem is that I'm asking in the wrong forum or the wrong >>> way. I have this legitimate question for the board, so how do I ask >>> it? I asked Mackenzie because it naturally flowed in the email >>> thread, but she's just one member of the board, so it might have >>> seemed I was singling her out. >>> >>> Do I simply need to sit and wait for a response on this thread, or do >>> I need to ask somewhere else? I really don't mean to badger with >>> questions on the list, it's only because I can't find any information >>> on how else to interact with the board. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> -- Chase >> >> Hi, >> >> You can contact the whole DMB at: >> developer-membership-bo...@lists.ubuntu.com >> >> Or add an agenda item for our next meeting: >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda > > Ahh, thanks! I'll subscribe to the list and send any more emails about > this there. Hrm, that list is private and I can't join. There must be some way to communicate with the board other than by adding a meeting agenda or hoping that an email you send to a private list is attended to. I would also like responses to questions I ask be available to others, and a private mailing list doesn't allow for this. -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 04:06:26 PM Chase Douglas wrote: >> On 08/03/2011 12:44 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote: On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote: >>> I think it's really up to the DMB to decide how they want to run their >>> application process. I think you should let them figure it out with our >>> input. There appeared to me to be a very different ratio of >>> liking/not-liking your proposal based on if someone was employed by >>> Canonical or not. I would suggest that given the current level of >>> pressure on the membership boards by various Canonical people that this >>> would be a particularly good time NOT to be pushing about trying to >>> force a process change on them. >> >> Please, stop assuming input here has anything to do with Canonical. I >> can state unequivocally that my input has nothing to do with who I work >> for. I am but an Ubuntu developer here. If it helps, I've used my >> @ubuntu.com email address to make it even more clear :). >> >> I also do not believe anyone is trying to whitewash things for >> Canonical. I want to point out a few things: >> >> 1. Many Canonical employees started out as Ubuntu members before they >> were employees. I doubt they are now trying to subvert a community they >> were and currently are a part of. >> 2. I have not seen anyone at Canonical apply for membership levels that >> did not make sense for that individual. I am unaware of anyone being >> granted membership based even in part on their status as a Canonical >> employee. >> 3. There are many Canonical employees who do not participate in Ubuntu. >> I have not seen any of them try to subvert the Ubuntu community. >> 4. I have no numbers here, but I believe if you look at the percentage >> of top Ubuntu contributors you will find that many also happen to be >> Canonical employees. If you filter them out, you may be forsaking >> valuable input from a large portion of the community. >> >> Every once in a while there may be a case where an individual Canonical >> employee has stepped out of bounds. I feel I can guarantee that it was >> not done to harm the Ubuntu project or community, but the end result may >> have been just that. Where I have seen that happen, I believe the >> parties have taken responsibility and corrected their actions. However, >> I see no reason to believe there is a systemic problem. >> >> If you believe there is a problem, please bring it up in whole in a >> separate thread. Comments like this do nothing but poison the >> conversation. Please judge things on their merits, not on who the >> contributor is employed by. > > Much of this entire discussion was started by Canonical employees wanting > special case treatment for upstream work sponsored by Canonical. It was a > Canonical employee that proposed to the Tech Board, without even consulting > with the DMB first, to change how the DMB could assess applications and > restrict their ability to deny applications. Multiple members of multiple > boards have complained they feel like they are subject to harrassment from > Canonical managers if they don't approve a Canonical applicant. The > agree/disagree ratio on your proposed change in how to change the application > process was roughly reversed depending on if someone was employed by > Canonical > or not. > > I think there is a serious split between the Canonical and non-Canonical > parts > of the community right now and trying to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't > help. I think it is broad and systematic. I don't believe it's intentional. > > I do believe it's a problem. If that's the case, then I am unaware of it. I will take your word for it, and would tend to agree with you if what you have stated is full and accurate. I apologize for any unbeknownst mistakes in my characterization of the relationship between Canonical and Ubuntu. However, please understand that I have nothing to do with any of that (other than ancillarily dragging myself into the upstream contributions discussion without knowing anything of it). Everything I read here on ubuntu-devel from Canonical employees appears to be unbiased to me. If you see bias, please feel free to call it out, but I haven't seen anything. However, do not assume that the intentions of everyone who works at Canonical are biased, and please evaluate input on the merits of the input alone. -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:45:09PM -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote: > [...] > Personally, as a member of the DMB, I definitely want to keep having > live meetings with the applicants. > > E-mail can be fine in very specific cases where live IRC meeting can't > be achieved and should only be something the DMB can choose to fallback > to on a case by case basis and not offered as a general way of applying. +1. I'm sorry everyone finds it so terrible currently. Regards, -- Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ la...@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ la...@ubuntu.com ] PhD student [ i...@cs.nott.ac.uk ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 04:06:26 PM Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:44 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote: > >> On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote: > >>> My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for > >>> evaluating typical applications, and move them to Launchpad. Create a > >>> project (maybe "ubuntu-developer-membership") and then have people open > >>> bugs when they have something to bring up before the board. > >> > >> There seem to be people who are in favor of this and people who are > >> sceptical. That's fine for now, but I think it would be worthwhile to > >> explore this option. This could also be used to supplement rather than > >> replace the current mechanism in cases where timezones don't line up or > >> at the applicants preference. > > Sure, all I'm doing is providing an option and following through by > starting a foundation so it can be evaluated. I'm not on the board, and > I realize I don't have a vote in this manner. > > > I think it's really up to the DMB to decide how they want to run their > > application process. I think you should let them figure it out with our > > input. There appeared to me to be a very different ratio of > > liking/not-liking your proposal based on if someone was employed by > > Canonical or not. I would suggest that given the current level of > > pressure on the membership boards by various Canonical people that this > > would be a particularly good time NOT to be pushing about trying to > > force a process change on them. > > Please, stop assuming input here has anything to do with Canonical. I > can state unequivocally that my input has nothing to do with who I work > for. I am but an Ubuntu developer here. If it helps, I've used my > @ubuntu.com email address to make it even more clear :). > > I also do not believe anyone is trying to whitewash things for > Canonical. I want to point out a few things: > > 1. Many Canonical employees started out as Ubuntu members before they > were employees. I doubt they are now trying to subvert a community they > were and currently are a part of. > 2. I have not seen anyone at Canonical apply for membership levels that > did not make sense for that individual. I am unaware of anyone being > granted membership based even in part on their status as a Canonical > employee. > 3. There are many Canonical employees who do not participate in Ubuntu. > I have not seen any of them try to subvert the Ubuntu community. > 4. I have no numbers here, but I believe if you look at the percentage > of top Ubuntu contributors you will find that many also happen to be > Canonical employees. If you filter them out, you may be forsaking > valuable input from a large portion of the community. > > Every once in a while there may be a case where an individual Canonical > employee has stepped out of bounds. I feel I can guarantee that it was > not done to harm the Ubuntu project or community, but the end result may > have been just that. Where I have seen that happen, I believe the > parties have taken responsibility and corrected their actions. However, > I see no reason to believe there is a systemic problem. > > If you believe there is a problem, please bring it up in whole in a > separate thread. Comments like this do nothing but poison the > conversation. Please judge things on their merits, not on who the > contributor is employed by. Much of this entire discussion was started by Canonical employees wanting special case treatment for upstream work sponsored by Canonical. It was a Canonical employee that proposed to the Tech Board, without even consulting with the DMB first, to change how the DMB could assess applications and restrict their ability to deny applications. Multiple members of multiple boards have complained they feel like they are subject to harrassment from Canonical managers if they don't approve a Canonical applicant. The agree/disagree ratio on your proposed change in how to change the application process was roughly reversed depending on if someone was employed by Canonical or not. I think there is a serious split between the Canonical and non-Canonical parts of the community right now and trying to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't help. I think it is broad and systematic. I don't believe it's intentional. I do believe it's a problem. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 01:45 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 08/03/2011 04:36 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: >> On 08/03/2011 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote: >>> On 08/03/2011 12:23 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas > wrote: >> What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply >> this way, or is it only under specific circumstances? > > Split votes go to the mailing list to try to find enough +1s > after a meeting. Board members can email in advance a +1/-1 if > they have no questions (either because they didn't to start > with or because they already talked to the person) > > The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in > email was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is the policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously would rather do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a Monday morning, hoping there's a quorum :). >>> >>> In my experience with various projects and communities, review >>> processes that are done entirely by email or bug queues are >>> generally less responsive, not more responsive. Regular time-based >>> meetings are a useful social motivator. And, as an applicant, a >>> multi-week email thread picking over their credentials is likely to >>> be far more daunting than a quick discussion on IRC. >>> >>> But, this is a decision for the DMB, or if they choose to escalate >>> it, a decision for higher community authorities. They understand >>> the concern raised by several community members (including you), so >>> it's time to step back and allow the community process to operate. >> >> Maybe my problem is that I'm asking in the wrong forum or the wrong >> way. I have this legitimate question for the board, so how do I ask >> it? I asked Mackenzie because it naturally flowed in the email >> thread, but she's just one member of the board, so it might have >> seemed I was singling her out. >> >> Do I simply need to sit and wait for a response on this thread, or do >> I need to ask somewhere else? I really don't mean to badger with >> questions on the list, it's only because I can't find any information >> on how else to interact with the board. >> >> Thanks! >> >> -- Chase > > Hi, > > You can contact the whole DMB at: > developer-membership-bo...@lists.ubuntu.com > > Or add an agenda item for our next meeting: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda Ahh, thanks! I'll subscribe to the list and send any more emails about this there. -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/03/2011 04:36 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote: >> On 08/03/2011 12:23 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: >>> On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply > this way, or is it only under specific circumstances? Split votes go to the mailing list to try to find enough +1s after a meeting. Board members can email in advance a +1/-1 if they have no questions (either because they didn't to start with or because they already talked to the person) The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in email was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. >>> >>> Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is >>> the policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously >>> would rather do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a >>> Monday morning, hoping there's a quorum :). >> >> In my experience with various projects and communities, review >> processes that are done entirely by email or bug queues are >> generally less responsive, not more responsive. Regular time-based >> meetings are a useful social motivator. And, as an applicant, a >> multi-week email thread picking over their credentials is likely to >> be far more daunting than a quick discussion on IRC. >> >> But, this is a decision for the DMB, or if they choose to escalate >> it, a decision for higher community authorities. They understand >> the concern raised by several community members (including you), so >> it's time to step back and allow the community process to operate. > > Maybe my problem is that I'm asking in the wrong forum or the wrong > way. I have this legitimate question for the board, so how do I ask > it? I asked Mackenzie because it naturally flowed in the email > thread, but she's just one member of the board, so it might have > seemed I was singling her out. > > Do I simply need to sit and wait for a response on this thread, or do > I need to ask somewhere else? I really don't mean to badger with > questions on the list, it's only because I can't find any information > on how else to interact with the board. > > Thanks! > > -- Chase Hi, You can contact the whole DMB at: developer-membership-bo...@lists.ubuntu.com Or add an agenda item for our next meeting: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda Personally, as a member of the DMB, I definitely want to keep having live meetings with the applicants. E-mail can be fine in very specific cases where live IRC meeting can't be achieved and should only be something the DMB can choose to fallback to on a case by case basis and not offered as a general way of applying. - -- Stéphane Graber Ubuntu developer http://www.canonical.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOObNSAAoJEMY4l01keS1nP3IP/1qpAi37RfzTs6LGwbr7iSjF iGjVmHQY/g5wHekwG9lOmRvqX07Lca2dQX1HwRFxDMAScTOUJLeEpfjwl+pHy6xU YdxcOa6qUTkDi89e3ppX+SN7rL1cnx9NT7eXs5oYwoBKqFd8la4d+75gjlmCsAYL UneDlx00Y+4Zunsm/VcbO3xIPFY5V70Cmzvw1kOjFtmH2YMOTcixSfQsQ6vpfeZB BF9kJwJ5prAXlu6p+Vau/1+aZKB60EO2R3kL2a35CkA8yqMHNYvr0UhYZ3hHKmls koi6j0zp25e8c+SXkQ/LK7CjJPlVXqTqj2b31UFOaX6tp7O35xShc5e2ndrTOrhZ GwkpyjKWlyUAgRx/MAKvtd7WG9uMxLzgPOeceTCcFdolfH9+wdnebF+DzQaQIJDi KE1wrl/bSBBzjy/7PCDrCwVXwflYf84cqlQs49XNhgrYaNCdsinke0yllfqmXIVB DfwpGsyc1d19bGOLRXLx14NWx7Mr3zpJO26Qt1JtgRUjVKTbaQuVf4T8tdmkachJ 2cSJjbabGXYQLCkooQo6Bwp0jG4WKVpH1KAnk8neErM6Aq9WrPMK1mDBdbPug4I1 Ec7X/FOrYMggJ0zpn2+VT/Se1iRSe8b56gJUy5UP8BRlXpcdZkbn64ImGfzkXqyr b6ybj2dPNNSh8kny0odU =SrgJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 12:50 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:23 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: >> On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas >>> wrote: What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply this way, or is it only under specific circumstances? >>> >>> Split votes go to the mailing list to try to find enough +1s after a >>> meeting. >>> Board members can email in advance a +1/-1 if they have no questions >>> (either because they didn't to start with or because they already >>> talked to the person) >>> >>> The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in email >>> was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. >> >> Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is the >> policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously would rather >> do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a Monday morning, hoping >> there's a quorum :). > > In my experience with various projects and communities, review processes > that are done entirely by email or bug queues are generally less > responsive, not more responsive. Regular time-based meetings are a > useful social motivator. And, as an applicant, a multi-week email thread > picking over their credentials is likely to be far more daunting than a > quick discussion on IRC. > > But, this is a decision for the DMB, or if they choose to escalate it, a > decision for higher community authorities. They understand the concern > raised by several community members (including you), so it's time to > step back and allow the community process to operate. Maybe my problem is that I'm asking in the wrong forum or the wrong way. I have this legitimate question for the board, so how do I ask it? I asked Mackenzie because it naturally flowed in the email thread, but she's just one member of the board, so it might have seemed I was singling her out. Do I simply need to sit and wait for a response on this thread, or do I need to ask somewhere else? I really don't mean to badger with questions on the list, it's only because I can't find any information on how else to interact with the board. Thanks! -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Chase Douglas > wrote: >> I don't think the DMB process is an important piece of community >> socialization at all. I doubt many people pay attention to it if they >> don't have a specific need to. There are much better and more important >> social pieces of Ubuntu. I just want to make this piece as painless as >> possible. > > I can think of one case where seeing the social interactions between > an applicant and board members in a meeting *should* have put up big > red flags around that applicant. Apparently they weren't big enough, > but he's gone now, and you can probably guess who I mean. Those red > flags, if they were being noticed, would have been the usefully > "social" part of the meeting. Perhaps. But as you say, this person is "gone now". So there are ways of dealing with mistakes. There are bad uploads to Ubuntu. Those are caught, fixed, replaced, expunged, etc. We all strive to make as few mistakes as possible, but there's a process for rectifying them. Even membership endowments. Ubuntu membership isn't exactly a seat on the US Supreme Court, although it seems that we put some people through a Congressional confirmation process, Clarence Thomas-style... -- :-Dustin Dustin Kirkland Ubuntu Core Developer -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Scott Moser wrote: >> 2011-06-20 [1] ended in a discussion about "Whats a Quorum" And if you read it, it's not "what's quorum?" We KNOW that. It's 4. The question was whether having majority-of-the-board-members-present was enough OR whether the applicant needed to have 4 +1 votes. That is: Does having 3 or the 4 quorum-makers vote +1 mean you get in because you got 3/4 OR does it mean you need to get more votes on the mailing list because that's 3/7? In line with that, the question was also: Does having +1, +1, +1, +1, -1, -1, -1 = +1 total (+4, -3) count as "passing"? How about +1, +1, +1, +1, +0, +0, +0 = +4 total (+4, +0)? Emmet wrote up what the voting procedure was on the Tech Board mailing list shortly after the meeting. I've never come across it written down before, and this was the DMB's first split vote since I joined it. The applicant received no more +1s via email after those not present voted, so the result is "not yet." The TB referred the question of vote totaling to the CC to set a unified policy, since there is disagreement about how -1s and +0s should be treated. >> [1] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/06/20/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t20:07 -- Mackenzie Morgan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Scott Moser wrote: >> 2011-06-20 [1] ended in a discussion about "Whats a Quorum" >> 2011-02-14 [2] was postponed, maybe that is what I had seen. I admit to >> possibly getting lost trying to quickly scan the logs. > > #1 had quorum just dandy. The applicant didn't get enough votes. > Period. When this occurs, we give the applicant a second chance via > the mailing list to make up the votes they are missing. I recently > learned that NOT all the other boards do this. This is apparently just > the DMB being nice about it. > #2 was the old DMB announcing who won the election for the new DMB, > attempting to vote on an application, and the applicant being a > no-show. Whether Daviey should apply for Core Dev and MOTU separately > was also discussed. Quorum was achieved (persia, cjwatson, bdrung, > soren). > >> -- >> [1] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/06/20/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t20:07 >> [2] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/02/14/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t12:15 > > -- > Mackenzie Morgan > -- Mackenzie Morgan Linux User #432169 ACM Member #3445683 http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com <-my blog of Ubuntu stuff apt-get moo -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:46:55 PM Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:35 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Scott Moser wrote: > >> At very least, this issue needs to be fixed. Meetings need to happen at > >> scheduled times, or be postponed/rescheduled at least 24 hours in > >> advance. > > > > Believe I already said this, but... > > The first two were when the board first went in, at which point we > > realised that the old board's meeting timeroyally sucked for all > > of us. So we changed it. And then it went along fine with us meeting > > all the time. The third was a holiday in the US, so I'm not at all > > surprised that it was missed, though we should've conferred first to > > see if anyone was planning on being awake before BBQ time ;) My work > > schedule has changed so that I *cannot* attend the early meeting, > > period, which is part of why there was no quorum this week. A Doodle > > poll is up for us to pick a new time that actually works for > > everybody. > > I think the message isn't that there aren't unforeseen circumstances. > It's that they need to be handled in a better fashion. Custom courtesy > (where I'm from at least :) says that meetings that are cancelled or > postponed have advance notice of at least 24 hours. If you can't give 24 > hour notice of an absence, then perhaps you should reconsider if you are > a good fit for the board. Maybe the boards should be limited to people who's employment includes their work on the board so they can be reliable? Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Scott Moser wrote: > 2011-06-20 [1] ended in a discussion about "Whats a Quorum" > 2011-02-14 [2] was postponed, maybe that is what I had seen. I admit to > possibly getting lost trying to quickly scan the logs. #1 had quorum just dandy. The applicant didn't get enough votes. Period. When this occurs, we give the applicant a second chance via the mailing list to make up the votes they are missing. I recently learned that NOT all the other boards do this. This is apparently just the DMB being nice about it. #2 was the old DMB announcing who won the election for the new DMB, attempting to vote on an application, and the applicant being a no-show. Whether Daviey should apply for Core Dev and MOTU separately was also discussed. Quorum was achieved (persia, cjwatson, bdrung, soren). > -- > [1] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/06/20/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t20:07 > [2] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/02/14/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t12:15 -- Mackenzie Morgan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 12:23 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas >> wrote: >>> What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply this way, or >>> is it only under specific circumstances? >> >> Split votes go to the mailing list to try to find enough +1s after a meeting. >> Board members can email in advance a +1/-1 if they have no questions >> (either because they didn't to start with or because they already >> talked to the person) >> >> The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in email >> was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. > > Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is the > policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously would rather > do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a Monday morning, hoping > there's a quorum :). In my experience with various projects and communities, review processes that are done entirely by email or bug queues are generally less responsive, not more responsive. Regular time-based meetings are a useful social motivator. And, as an applicant, a multi-week email thread picking over their credentials is likely to be far more daunting than a quick discussion on IRC. But, this is a decision for the DMB, or if they choose to escalate it, a decision for higher community authorities. They understand the concern raised by several community members (including you), so it's time to step back and allow the community process to operate. Allison -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 12:44 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote: >> On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote: >>> My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for >>> evaluating typical applications, and move them to Launchpad. Create a >>> project (maybe "ubuntu-developer-membership") and then have people open >>> bugs when they have something to bring up before the board. >> >> There seem to be people who are in favor of this and people who are >> sceptical. That's fine for now, but I think it would be worthwhile to >> explore this option. This could also be used to supplement rather than >> replace the current mechanism in cases where timezones don't line up or >> at the applicants preference. Sure, all I'm doing is providing an option and following through by starting a foundation so it can be evaluated. I'm not on the board, and I realize I don't have a vote in this manner. > I think it's really up to the DMB to decide how they want to run their > application process. I think you should let them figure it out with our > input. > There appeared to me to be a very different ratio of liking/not-liking your > proposal based on if someone was employed by Canonical or not. I would > suggest that given the current level of pressure on the membership boards by > various Canonical people that this would be a particularly good time NOT to > be > pushing about trying to force a process change on them. Please, stop assuming input here has anything to do with Canonical. I can state unequivocally that my input has nothing to do with who I work for. I am but an Ubuntu developer here. If it helps, I've used my @ubuntu.com email address to make it even more clear :). I also do not believe anyone is trying to whitewash things for Canonical. I want to point out a few things: 1. Many Canonical employees started out as Ubuntu members before they were employees. I doubt they are now trying to subvert a community they were and currently are a part of. 2. I have not seen anyone at Canonical apply for membership levels that did not make sense for that individual. I am unaware of anyone being granted membership based even in part on their status as a Canonical employee. 3. There are many Canonical employees who do not participate in Ubuntu. I have not seen any of them try to subvert the Ubuntu community. 4. I have no numbers here, but I believe if you look at the percentage of top Ubuntu contributors you will find that many also happen to be Canonical employees. If you filter them out, you may be forsaking valuable input from a large portion of the community. Every once in a while there may be a case where an individual Canonical employee has stepped out of bounds. I feel I can guarantee that it was not done to harm the Ubuntu project or community, but the end result may have been just that. Where I have seen that happen, I believe the parties have taken responsibility and corrected their actions. However, I see no reason to believe there is a systemic problem. If you believe there is a problem, please bring it up in whole in a separate thread. Comments like this do nothing but poison the conversation. Please judge things on their merits, not on who the contributor is employed by. -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Scott Moser wrote: > > With no further digging, only looking at > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Logs , 4 out of the last > > 11 meetings scheduled did not happen. 3 of those were due to lack of > > quorum. At least one other meeting not explicitly listed required email > > vote due to lack of quorum. > > Which was that? We did do email voting for a handful of people, but > that was due to having inherited a large enough backlog that even > having quorum wouldn't have gotten through before more people were > added to the list again without having meetings last 2-3 hours 2-3 > times. 2011-06-20 [1] ended in a discussion about "Whats a Quorum" 2011-02-14 [2] was postponed, maybe that is what I had seen. I admit to possibly getting lost trying to quickly scan the logs. -- [1] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/06/20/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t20:07 [2] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/02/14/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t12:15 > Believe I already said this, but... > The first two were when the board first went in, at which point we > realised that the old board's meeting timeroyally sucked for all > of us. So we changed it. And then it went along fine with us meeting > all the time. The third was a holiday in the US, so I'm not at all > surprised that it was missed, though we should've conferred first to > see if anyone was planning on being awake before BBQ time ;) My work > schedule has changed so that I *cannot* attend the early meeting, > period, which is part of why there was no quorum this week. A Doodle > poll is up for us to pick a new time that actually works for > everybody. I hope that a new time improves the situation.-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions
So, there are a couple merge proposals right now for control file description typo fixes for natty: https://code.launchpad.net/~bones/ubuntu/oneiric/gnomebaker/fix-for-818364/+merge/70234 https://code.launchpad.net/~bones/ubuntu/natty/radiotray/fix-for-722886/+merge/70107 The package has either been removed or fixed in the dev release, so that's not an issue. So, something like this would seeming be fine in conjunction with another SRU, but wouldn't qualify on its own for one if I understand correctly. I'm wondering if there should be a queue for these fix only with something else, or if we should just close won't fix (see SRU policy). Thanks, Micah -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 03:51 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> I think the message isn't that there aren't unforeseen circumstances. >> It's that they need to be handled in a better fashion. Custom courtesy >> (where I'm from at least :) says that meetings that are cancelled or >> postponed have advance notice of at least 24 hours. If you can't give 24 >> hour notice of an absence, then perhaps you should reconsider if you are >> a good fit for the board. > > Maybe the boards should be limited to people who's employment includes their > work on the board so they can be reliable? If the problem is a lack of quorum, perhaps we should have DMB members check in ahead of time (think, like a day) as to whether they can make the meeting. That should give people a better idea whether the meeting will actually occur, and allow meetings that would otherwise not have a quorum to be canceled outright. -- Luke Faraone;; Debian & Ubuntu Developer; Sugar Labs, Systems lfaraone on irc.[freenode,oftc].net -- http://luke.faraone.cc PGP fprint: 5189 2A7D 16D0 49BB 046B DC77 9732 5DD8 F9FD D506 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 12:35 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Scott Moser wrote: >> At very least, this issue needs to be fixed. Meetings need to happen at >> scheduled times, or be postponed/rescheduled at least 24 hours in advance. > > Believe I already said this, but... > The first two were when the board first went in, at which point we > realised that the old board's meeting timeroyally sucked for all > of us. So we changed it. And then it went along fine with us meeting > all the time. The third was a holiday in the US, so I'm not at all > surprised that it was missed, though we should've conferred first to > see if anyone was planning on being awake before BBQ time ;) My work > schedule has changed so that I *cannot* attend the early meeting, > period, which is part of why there was no quorum this week. A Doodle > poll is up for us to pick a new time that actually works for > everybody. I think the message isn't that there aren't unforeseen circumstances. It's that they need to be handled in a better fashion. Custom courtesy (where I'm from at least :) says that meetings that are cancelled or postponed have advance notice of at least 24 hours. If you can't give 24 hour notice of an absence, then perhaps you should reconsider if you are a good fit for the board. If one or two meetings a year don't reach quorum, that's reasonable. But when members know ahead of time they will miss meetings, the board should take responsibility to convey the information to other attendees. -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote: > > My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for > > evaluating typical applications, and move them to Launchpad. Create a > > project (maybe "ubuntu-developer-membership") and then have people open > > bugs when they have something to bring up before the board. > > There seem to be people who are in favor of this and people who are > sceptical. That's fine for now, but I think it would be worthwhile to > explore this option. This could also be used to supplement rather than > replace the current mechanism in cases where timezones don't line up or > at the applicants preference. I think it's really up to the DMB to decide how they want to run their application process. I think you should let them figure it out with our input. There appeared to me to be a very different ratio of liking/not-liking your proposal based on if someone was employed by Canonical or not. I would suggest that given the current level of pressure on the membership boards by various Canonical people that this would be a particularly good time NOT to be pushing about trying to force a process change on them. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:30 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Chase Douglas >>> Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is the >>> policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously would rather >>> do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a Monday morning, hoping >>> there's a quorum :). >> >> There's *always* quorum at the...what-I-call-3-pm meeting, if that >> helps any. I don't know of a rule either way on processing by email by >> request. > > What meeting is this? I only saw the 6 AM meeting on the agenda. Meeting times alternate. This week it was US-morning (9AM for me). In two weeks it'll be US-afternoon (3PM for me). -- Mackenzie Morgan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Scott Moser wrote: > With no further digging, only looking at > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Logs , 4 out of the last > 11 meetings scheduled did not happen. 3 of those were due to lack of > quorum. At least one other meeting not explicitly listed required email > vote due to lack of quorum. Which was that? We did do email voting for a handful of people, but that was due to having inherited a large enough backlog that even having quorum wouldn't have gotten through before more people were added to the list again without having meetings last 2-3 hours 2-3 times. > At very least, this issue needs to be fixed. Meetings need to happen at > scheduled times, or be postponed/rescheduled at least 24 hours in advance. Believe I already said this, but... The first two were when the board first went in, at which point we realised that the old board's meeting timeroyally sucked for all of us. So we changed it. And then it went along fine with us meeting all the time. The third was a holiday in the US, so I'm not at all surprised that it was missed, though we should've conferred first to see if anyone was planning on being awake before BBQ time ;) My work schedule has changed so that I *cannot* attend the early meeting, period, which is part of why there was no quorum this week. A Doodle poll is up for us to pick a new time that actually works for everybody. -- Mackenzie Morgan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 12:30 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Chase Douglas > wrote: >> On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas >>> wrote: What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply this way, or is it only under specific circumstances? >>> >>> Split votes go to the mailing list to try to find enough +1s after a >>> meeting. >>> Board members can email in advance a +1/-1 if they have no questions >>> (either because they didn't to start with or because they already >>> talked to the person) >>> >>> The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in email >>> was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. >> >> Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is the >> policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously would rather >> do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a Monday morning, hoping >> there's a quorum :). > > There's *always* quorum at the...what-I-call-3-pm meeting, if that > helps any. I don't know of a rule either way on processing by email by > request. What meeting is this? I only saw the 6 AM meeting on the agenda. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas >> wrote: >>> What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply this way, or >>> is it only under specific circumstances? >> >> Split votes go to the mailing list to try to find enough +1s after a meeting. >> Board members can email in advance a +1/-1 if they have no questions >> (either because they didn't to start with or because they already >> talked to the person) >> >> The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in email >> was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. > > Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is the > policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously would rather > do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a Monday morning, hoping > there's a quorum :). There's *always* quorum at the...what-I-call-3-pm meeting, if that helps any. I don't know of a rule either way on processing by email by request. /me looks around at other DMB members to see who's up for it. -- Mackenzie Morgan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Nathan Handler wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Chase Douglas > wrote: > > True, but progress sometimes means change. I think this system would > > work better, and if proven right it could be a model for other boards to > > adopt. If it's worse, then the DMB can easily switch back. I would also > > be happy to be a guinea pig for any process changes. > > Having a meeting on a set date each month helps eliminate most of > those issues. It also has a feeling of being more open to the > community (which is important, as community feedback/testimonials > about applicants is often a very valuable tool in evaluating an > application). It sounds like the issue has more to do with the fact > that quorum has not been able to be met, and not with whether or not > the IRC meetings are effective. I tend to agree that IRC meetings are a good way to handle this. It means there is a set time in which someone can expect to be decided upon, and ability for realtime[ish] conversation. Unfortunately it has largely failed this year. The normal experience for someone applying for Developer Membership is to be delayed at least 1 meeting. With no further digging, only looking at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Logs , 4 out of the last 11 meetings scheduled did not happen. 3 of those were due to lack of quorum. At least one other meeting not explicitly listed required email vote due to lack of quorum. I can understand that last minute issues come up, and people are not able to attend meetings. That definitely does occur. However, it would seem that the frequency at which this occurs for this particular meeting indicates something else. At very least, this issue needs to be fixed. Meetings need to happen at scheduled times, or be postponed/rescheduled at least 24 hours in advance. I can personally attest to twice being excited about a meeting, and then let down that it did not happen. Its really no way to treat people. Note, I'm somewhat hesitant in sending this, as I'm basically criticizing (hopefully respectively and constructively) a group of people who have power over me. I'm sure that many other people have felt this way before and have not spoken up in order to avoid rocking a boat. Thank you, Chase, for raising the issue. Scott -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas > wrote: >> What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply this way, or >> is it only under specific circumstances? > > Split votes go to the mailing list to try to find enough +1s after a meeting. > Board members can email in advance a +1/-1 if they have no questions > (either because they didn't to start with or because they already > talked to the person) > > The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in email > was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is the policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously would rather do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a Monday morning, hoping there's a quorum :). -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply this way, or > is it only under specific circumstances? Split votes go to the mailing list to try to find enough +1s after a meeting. Board members can email in advance a +1/-1 if they have no questions (either because they didn't to start with or because they already talked to the person) The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in email was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. -- Mackenzie Morgan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 11:43 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Chase Douglas > wrote: >> I don't think the DMB process is an important piece of community >> socialization at all. I doubt many people pay attention to it if they >> don't have a specific need to. There are much better and more important >> social pieces of Ubuntu. I just want to make this piece as painless as >> possible. > > I can think of one case where seeing the social interactions between > an applicant and board members in a meeting *should* have put up big > red flags around that applicant. Apparently they weren't big enough, > but he's gone now, and you can probably guess who I mean. Those red > flags, if they were being noticed, would have been the usefully > "social" part of the meeting. Perhaps, but there are two issues: 1. I guess the red flags weren't seen, so the process didn't actually help 2. If the DMB allows email applications in lieu of board meetings, then the point is moot What is the policy for email applications? Can anyone apply this way, or is it only under specific circumstances? -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote:
> My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for
> evaluating typical applications, and move them to Launchpad. Create a
> project (maybe "ubuntu-developer-membership") and then have people open
> bugs when they have something to bring up before the board.
There seem to be people who are in favor of this and people who are
sceptical. That's fine for now, but I think it would be worthwhile to
explore this option. This could also be used to supplement rather than
replace the current mechanism in cases where timezones don't line up or
at the applicants preference.
I created a script that would process Launchpad based DMB applications.
To do this, I am (ab)using the qastaging LP instance. I've created a
test scenario as follows:
New team: test-dmb-team
Members: Me
New project: test-dmb
The scenario is: I (Chase Douglas) am filing an application for Core
Dev. I created a bug for the application:
https://bugs.qastaging.launchpad.net/test-dmb/+bug/800139
If the bug disappears, it's because they wiped the qastaging instance. I
can recreate the bug with a script, so let me know if you want to see it
but it's gone
Here's where it gets a bit confusing: I can create a bunch of stuff on
qastaging, but I can't create new LP users to act as dummy DMB board
members. Thus, in the bug you see a mix of stuff from myself (the
applicant), and myself (the dummy DMB member), and myself (the output of
the script). I also had to set the threshold for approval to +1 since I
can't get anyone else to vote :).
If you go to the bug you'll see the end result. I'll explain what
happened in a timeline fashion:
1. I filed the bug. The description started at "I, Chase Douglas, apply
for core developer membership". The header was not present. The status
is New and no one is assigned.
2. The DMB ran the script (remember, I am also the DMB so it says I made
these changes). The status is moved to In Progress and the DMB team is
assigned. The comments are searched for anyone on the DMB who has made a
comment with only the following text: "+1", "0", or "-1". These are
considered votes and are tallied and prepended as a header to the
comment description. If a DMB member votes more than once, only the last
vote counts. The approval threshold is checked, but is not met yet.
3. A DMB member (myself again!) leaves a comment and a vote ("+1"). The
script is re-run, and the votes are tallied. The application meets the
threshold, so the header is updated and an "Official" notification of
approval is made as a comment. Since anyone can edit a description, this
official notification serves as the real testament of approval since the
comment creater is authenticated and obvious. The status is moved to Fix
Committed.
4. (Not done yet) A DMB member follows up and twiddles any bits required
to give Core Dev status. The member would then move the bug status to
Fix Released.
-
The next step would be to generate a web page with the status of all the
open applications so the DMB team can review it and quickly determine
what needs to be done. The web page would list vote totals, who has
reviewed, who still needs to review, and the status for each
application. I didn't do this yet because I was interested in feedback
on this approach overall.
P.S.: Code can be found at lp:~chasedouglas/+junk/dmbscripts. It's very
raw and obviously copy/pasted in the current form
Thoughts?
Thanks!
-- Chase
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > I don't think the DMB process is an important piece of community > socialization at all. I doubt many people pay attention to it if they > don't have a specific need to. There are much better and more important > social pieces of Ubuntu. I just want to make this piece as painless as > possible. I can think of one case where seeing the social interactions between an applicant and board members in a meeting *should* have put up big red flags around that applicant. Apparently they weren't big enough, but he's gone now, and you can probably guess who I mean. Those red flags, if they were being noticed, would have been the usefully "social" part of the meeting. -- Mackenzie Morgan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/03/2011 09:18 AM, Oliver Grawert wrote: > hi, > Am Dienstag, den 02.08.2011, 09:33 -0700 schrieb Chase Douglas: >> Hi all, >> >> Yesterday I attempted to attend a DMB meeting, but unfortunately only >> two members showed so there wasn't a quorum. I think I've been to about >> an equal number of meetings where quorum has and has not been reached >> :(. This led me to think that there must be a better way to handle DMB >> proceedings. >> >> My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for >> evaluating typical applications, and move them to Launchpad. Create a >> project (maybe "ubuntu-developer-membership") and then have people open >> bugs when they have something to bring up before the board. Here's an >> example of a bug I would create for this: > > so you would turn a very important piece of community socialization into > a plain formal buerocratic process, sorry but that doesnt feel like > "linux for human beings" ... /!\ Warning: The following represents how things seemed to me when I went before a previous DMB. It may not apply to the current DMB, and if so please excuse. I don't think the DMB process is an important piece of community socialization at all. I doubt many people pay attention to it if they don't have a specific need to. There are much better and more important social pieces of Ubuntu. I just want to make this piece as painless as possible. For me personally it feels like a bureaucratic process already, though I don't think that can be helped much. It's a vetting process, and no one really likes to be vetted. > the meetings and direct conversation are an essential social bit of the > membership process. while i agree there should be fallbacks for special > cases so that people *can* use mail or special web forms if needed, > using such a process as default to me looks like we moving away from our > spirit completely ... > > please dont turn the processes into unpersonal bruerocracy, while that > works for many things i still like to think of ubuntus community as > something that can do better and impose humanity towards others (since > we still advertise that), especially for such an important step like > entering said community. I feel the process is already impersonal. Every time I've gone in front of the board there was no social aspect to it. The only way it could be conceived as social was that it was real-time communication. However, that belies the fact that it was bland back and forth about details and circumstances. If the DMB wants to make this process a "social" one, it needs to re-evaluate how the meetings are driven. I don't think that's necessary though. -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
The next Kubuntu council Meeting to review bambee's membership application
Hi, Everything is in the title. Have a look at http://doodle.com/f3v9k6vpycesgm2b Regards, Romain -- kubuntu-devel mailing list kubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote: > Yesterday I attempted to attend a DMB meeting, but unfortunately only > two members showed so there wasn't a quorum. I think I've been to about > an equal number of meetings where quorum has and has not been reached > :(. This led me to think that there must be a better way to handle DMB > proceedings. > > My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for > evaluating typical applications, and move them to Launchpad. Create a > project (maybe "ubuntu-developer-membership") and then have people open > bugs when they have something to bring up before the board. +1! I think it's a great idea and looks like many of the processes with which we're familiar. Authentication is a big advantage of LP, as is the asynchronous nature (lack of a quorum is so 1775). Having a long, running history for difficult applications would be nice. It would also lend itself better to statistical, historical analysis of approved and rejected applications (which currently require grepping mailing lists and IRC logs). Great idea, Chase. I hope we're up for the change. -- :-Dustin Dustin Kirkland Ubuntu Core Developer -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
hi, Am Dienstag, den 02.08.2011, 09:33 -0700 schrieb Chase Douglas: > Hi all, > > Yesterday I attempted to attend a DMB meeting, but unfortunately only > two members showed so there wasn't a quorum. I think I've been to about > an equal number of meetings where quorum has and has not been reached > :(. This led me to think that there must be a better way to handle DMB > proceedings. > > My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for > evaluating typical applications, and move them to Launchpad. Create a > project (maybe "ubuntu-developer-membership") and then have people open > bugs when they have something to bring up before the board. Here's an > example of a bug I would create for this: so you would turn a very important piece of community socialization into a plain formal buerocratic process, sorry but that doesnt feel like "linux for human beings" ... the meetings and direct conversation are an essential social bit of the membership process. while i agree there should be fallbacks for special cases so that people *can* use mail or special web forms if needed, using such a process as default to me looks like we moving away from our spirit completely ... please dont turn the processes into unpersonal bruerocracy, while that works for many things i still like to think of ubuntus community as something that can do better and impose humanity towards others (since we still advertise that), especially for such an important step like entering said community. ciao oli -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:37:54 AM Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/02/2011 06:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 02, 2011 04:04:31 PM Chase Douglas wrote: > >> On 08/02/2011 12:43 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Bryce Harrington > > > > wrote: > Sounds like a good idea to me. It makes it analogous to other > processes such as the sponsorship, MIR, SRU, etc. processes that > applicants may already be familiar with. > >>> > >>> And drastically different from the other team membership processes > >>> (Ubuntu Membership, Kubuntu Membership, etc.) that applicants may > >>> already be familiar with. > >> > >> True, but progress sometimes means change. I think this system would > >> work better, and if proven right it could be a model for other boards to > >> adopt. If it's worse, then the DMB can easily switch back. I would also > >> be happy to be a guinea pig for any process changes. > > > > Speaking as someone who considers Kubuntu membership (as part of Kubuntu > > Council) and developer (as part of kubuntu-dev), I don't think this is a > > good idea. As difficult as finding a good time for a meeting can be, I > > think the interactive discussion is an important part of it. I would > > hate to change the process into just a review of static content. I > > believe this proposed change would be a step backwards. Membership > > boards already use email voting on a case by case basis to address > > problems with sync when needed. I think that's sufficient. > > I thought about this aspect some, but then I remembered what it was like > when I've gone before the DMB before. What I remember is getting a > question, me answering it within 30 seconds, and then waiting a few > minutes for another question. Loop this around for 15 minutes or more > per person. There was a lot of dead time that could have been chopped > out, and I don't think there was really a feeling of a dynamic > conversation. I agree it's slow, but unless we use some kind of audio conference I don't know how to make it faster. I do find it valuable and would not want to do away with it. > There's also an issue with applicants who aren't native english > speakers. It can be unsettling for anyone to go in front of a board, and > to do it in realtime as a non-native speaker of the language. It can > make things bad enough that it deters people from trying. AFAIK (and > I've been proven wrong many times recently :), the DMB is the only way > to get upload rights like Core Dev and MOTU and to handle package sets. English is the language of the project, so to be able to participate, people have to be able to use it. I can see how it would be unsettling, but I think the board would be understanding that answers might come a bit slow and ask for clarification rather than assume problems if there are concerns about an answer. These applications will be even slower and less dynamic, but I still think it's important. The only case I know of where someone was overly unsettled during questioning they were a native English speaker. In that case it was the board being rushed since they were about out of time and it might have been better to defer the application than squeeze it in. Other membership boards might not find the in meeting conversation useful. I certainly do. It's not just about approval/not approval. For developer applications I generally learn about a weak spot we need to work with them on after they are approved. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Chase Douglas wrote: > The issue with the email voting is two-fold: > > 1. It's not advertised anywhere. I didn't know it was possible until it > was mentioned yesterday. This is easy to fix. > 2. As mentioned yesterday, there's the possibility that applications > fall through the cracks. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda Normally applications are numbered for the order they'll come up at a meeting. (E) means they're being processed by email instead. 3 were done this way in March/April when attempting to catch up the giant backlog we inherited from the old DMB and accidentally built upon with the bad meeting time in March. -- Mackenzie Morgan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 08/02/2011 06:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, August 02, 2011 04:04:31 PM Chase Douglas wrote: >> On 08/02/2011 12:43 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Bryce Harrington > wrote: Sounds like a good idea to me. It makes it analogous to other processes such as the sponsorship, MIR, SRU, etc. processes that applicants may already be familiar with. >>> >>> And drastically different from the other team membership processes >>> (Ubuntu Membership, Kubuntu Membership, etc.) that applicants may >>> already be familiar with. >> >> True, but progress sometimes means change. I think this system would >> work better, and if proven right it could be a model for other boards to >> adopt. If it's worse, then the DMB can easily switch back. I would also >> be happy to be a guinea pig for any process changes. > > Speaking as someone who considers Kubuntu membership (as part of Kubuntu > Council) and developer (as part of kubuntu-dev), I don't think this is a good > idea. As difficult as finding a good time for a meeting can be, I think the > interactive discussion is an important part of it. I would hate to change > the > process into just a review of static content. I believe this proposed change > would be a step backwards. Membership boards already use email voting on a > case by case basis to address problems with sync when needed. I think that's > sufficient. I thought about this aspect some, but then I remembered what it was like when I've gone before the DMB before. What I remember is getting a question, me answering it within 30 seconds, and then waiting a few minutes for another question. Loop this around for 15 minutes or more per person. There was a lot of dead time that could have been chopped out, and I don't think there was really a feeling of a dynamic conversation. There's also an issue with applicants who aren't native english speakers. It can be unsettling for anyone to go in front of a board, and to do it in realtime as a non-native speaker of the language. It can make things bad enough that it deters people from trying. AFAIK (and I've been proven wrong many times recently :), the DMB is the only way to get upload rights like Core Dev and MOTU and to handle package sets. The issue with the email voting is two-fold: 1. It's not advertised anywhere. I didn't know it was possible until it was mentioned yesterday. This is easy to fix. 2. As mentioned yesterday, there's the possibility that applications fall through the cracks. I personally would rather skip the meeting altogether and do it completely static anyways, either through email or LP or something else. Would the DMB find it acceptable if people opt for that option just because applicants prefer it? Or is it only available if nothing else works? -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: lintian build failure
Am Mittwoch, den 03.08.2011, 14:35 +0100 schrieb Iain Lane: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 03:25:34PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > > Hello Benjamin, > > > > Benjamin Drung [2011-07-25 16:56 +0200]: > > > +E: control-files-weird-files: control-file-has-bad-permissions triggers > > > 0664 != 0644 > > > > This is most likely because in oneiric the standard umask for > > non-system users is 002 now, for users which are in a private user > > group. I. e. new files get created with 664 permissions now. > > > > As the "buildd" user is such a user, this would explain the test suite > > failure. As the test suite seems to assume a 022 umask, I suggest > > running the tests with an "umask 022" statement. > > I believe this is fixed by > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=lintian/lintian.git;a=commit;h=f5b9b28a55b6a786fd6192b9fde06bef19206e30 > > but I haven't tested it. If someone has time, they could cherry-pick > this commit and upload to oneiric. Yes, this is a partial fix for it. The current lintian git head builds on oneiric. I will merge lintian 2.5.2 once it is released. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: lintian build failure
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 03:25:34PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello Benjamin, > > Benjamin Drung [2011-07-25 16:56 +0200]: > > +E: control-files-weird-files: control-file-has-bad-permissions triggers > > 0664 != 0644 > > This is most likely because in oneiric the standard umask for > non-system users is 002 now, for users which are in a private user > group. I. e. new files get created with 664 permissions now. > > As the "buildd" user is such a user, this would explain the test suite > failure. As the test suite seems to assume a 022 umask, I suggest > running the tests with an "umask 022" statement. I believe this is fixed by http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=lintian/lintian.git;a=commit;h=f5b9b28a55b6a786fd6192b9fde06bef19206e30 but I haven't tested it. If someone has time, they could cherry-pick this commit and upload to oneiric. Cheers, -- Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ la...@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ la...@ubuntu.com ] PhD student [ i...@cs.nott.ac.uk ] -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: lintian build failure
Hello Benjamin, Benjamin Drung [2011-07-25 16:56 +0200]: > +E: control-files-weird-files: control-file-has-bad-permissions triggers 0664 > != 0644 This is most likely because in oneiric the standard umask for non-system users is 002 now, for users which are in a private user group. I. e. new files get created with 664 permissions now. As the "buildd" user is such a user, this would explain the test suite failure. As the test suite seems to assume a 022 umask, I suggest running the tests with an "umask 022" statement. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
