Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Iain Lane]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:54:00PM +0200, Michael Bienia wrote:
> On 2011-07-25 16:11:43 +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 05:01:35PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > > I agree that the name is misleading and it's unfortunate that it
> > > confuses applicants. It'd be good to change it something sensible. Even
> > > if we just change it in the documentation.
> > 
> > I just added a discussion item to the next DMB agenda to rename the team
> > to Ubuntu Development Members. This is in line with the other delegated
> > (non RMB) membership names, and I think is much less confusing.
> 
> I'm for a name change but only if it makes things more clear and easier
> to understand. But I disagree on "Ubuntu Development Members" as it's
> too easy to mix it up with "Ubuntu Developers". If applicants assume
> they get upload rights when they are members of "Ubuntu Development
> Members" nothing is gained.

I should have anticipated a bikeshed discussion on the name. I don't
care what it is (including dropping the team entirely). I only proposed
Ubuntu Development Members as it it fits in with the Ubuntu X Members
schema that you find elsewhere and having the team fits in with the
structure set up by the CC.

If people can come up with something that everybody likes then please
edit my agenda item so that we consider that name instead.

Cheers,

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Scott Kitterman]

Mackenzie Morgan  wrote:

>On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Bienia 
>wrote:
>> I'm for a name change but only if it makes things more clear and
>easier
>> to understand. But I disagree on "Ubuntu Development Members" as it's
>> too easy to mix it up with "Ubuntu Developers". If applicants assume
>> they get upload rights when they are members of "Ubuntu Development
>> Members" nothing is gained.
>
>"Ubuntu Members Who Like Development" ...that makes for a crappy
>acronym though.

The more I think about it, the more I like "Ubuntu Member".

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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Bienia  wrote:
> I'm for a name change but only if it makes things more clear and easier
> to understand. But I disagree on "Ubuntu Development Members" as it's
> too easy to mix it up with "Ubuntu Developers". If applicants assume
> they get upload rights when they are members of "Ubuntu Development
> Members" nothing is gained.

"Ubuntu Members Who Like Development" ...that makes for a crappy acronym though.

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Michael Bienia]

On 2011-07-25 16:11:43 +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 05:01:35PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > I agree that the name is misleading and it's unfortunate that it
> > confuses applicants. It'd be good to change it something sensible. Even
> > if we just change it in the documentation.
> 
> I just added a discussion item to the next DMB agenda to rename the team
> to Ubuntu Development Members. This is in line with the other delegated
> (non RMB) membership names, and I think is much less confusing.

I'm for a name change but only if it makes things more clear and easier
to understand. But I disagree on "Ubuntu Development Members" as it's
too easy to mix it up with "Ubuntu Developers". If applicants assume
they get upload rights when they are members of "Ubuntu Development
Members" nothing is gained.

Michael

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Michael Bienia]

On 2011-07-25 22:58:10 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On 25 July 2011 07:45, Benjamin Drung  wrote:
> > I would recommend people to apply for 'Ubuntu Contributing Developer'
> > before applying for MOTU or core-dev.
> 
> I disagree with your recommendation. I recently got my Ubuntu
> membership through the Regional Boards and it turns out I was a good
> candidate for the Ubuntu Contributing Developer (UCD) route which I
> had actually not heard of yet. UCD provides no extra privileges or
> status, and there's no point in anybody who is already a Ubuntu Member
> getting UCD status before applying for MOTU or core-dev.

At least in the past the DMB talked to UCD applicants who were already
Ubuntu members before a meeting as UCD wouldn't grant them anything
(except an additional badge on their LP profile) and only processed
those applications if the applicant insisted on UCD membership.

Ubuntu membership (preferrable through UCD) is a recommendation for MOTU
applicants but no requirement. And it doesn't matter if one got Ubuntu
member through UCD, forums, IRC or any other membership granting
activities.

Michael

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Michael Bienia]

On 2011-07-25 07:51:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing.  What it means is "Ubuntu 
> member that got their membership based on development contribution and not 
> some other kind".  Do we really need a different name for this?  It might be 
> more clear to just have the DMB grant Ubuntu membership by name rather than 
> have a separate name/team that doesn't actually mean anything different.

IIRC the CC preferred a seperate team (would have to dig in my MC
mail archive) to be able to track which of the different membership
boards added a member instead of one ~ubuntumembers team with many
administrators.

But I agree that UCD is not very descriptive.

Michael

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Michael Bienia]

On 2011-07-25 14:48:38 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Package set members having exclusive lock on packages is something that has 
> > been discussed, but AIUI (except for packagesets corresponding to Main) 
> > there 
> > are no such restrictive packagesets in place.

AIUI those packagesets that correspond to Main aren't those "exclusive
packagesets" from the ArchiveReorg wiki page. Those "exlusive
packagesets" are so exclusive that even core-dev isn't enough for them
and you have to be a member of the upload team associated to that
exclusive packageset so be able to upload them. I expect only very, very
few of such exclusive packagesets (<< 10) and only for very important
packages (VIP :) that would be hard to recover from a broken upgrade
(like e.g. dash or libc).
That way it would be possible to earlier accept new generalists (=
core-dev) without the "fear" that the overestimated their knowledge and
totally break systems by mistake.


[...]
> AIUI, it wasn't that all packagesets would be totally restrictive in the
> reorg, but rather they would be core-dev + packageset uploaders for the
> ACLs.

That's my understand too (with core-dev == generalists).
The original plan was to only have generalists (core-dev) and package
set uploaders. MOTU should got merged into core-dev but that raised
concerns from current core-dev members. And in a later discussion it was
decided that MOTU should be kept for the unseeded packages/packages
without a package set/long tail.

> The only difference WRT now would be MOTU access to current
> universe packages.  I think the understanding is that if we have a
> packageset, we have a subset of people caring for those packages.  Any
> qualified person wishing to care for these packages can then apply for
> the packageset.  MOTU would serve as generalists for the packages that
> have no particular group taking care of them in the archive.

The concept of main and universe should vanish with ArchiveReorg. So
either (the future) MOTU would have only access to
a) only the "unseeded" package set
   Packages from that set can also be in other package sets as long as
   they don't belong to the "seeded" ones. This would be mostly what
   currently universe is.
b) only the packages without a package set
c) be members of all package sets which get build from todays "universe"
   But here I see the problem how to maintain what would belong to
   "universe" in the long run and either MOTU would convert into b) or
   core-dev (member of all non-exclusive package sets).

I'm not sure which understanding was decided on for the future MOTU.

Michael

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Andrew Starr-Bochicchio]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Jeremy Bicha  wrote:
> I don't see how gaining this extra title encourages additional
> involvement. Maybe if the title meant something...

In my experience, people like to have their contributions acknowledged.

And yes, it doesn't mean much now. I readily admitted that. I was
suggesting that we, the community of Ubuntu developers, should bestow
meaning on it socially. If people felt that becoming a UCD was a sign
of acknowledgement from the community for their contributions and
something that would ease their path to motu, then it would have
meaning.

-- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio

   Ubuntu Developer 
   Debian Contributor

   PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Bryce Harrington]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 02:41:29PM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > At UDS for Karmic (Barcelona) we had a session that defined the current 
> > state
> > of things.  We discussed renaming MOTU and decided against it.  IMO this 
> > sort
> > of "Oh, it's different now ..." "MOTU will need to be renamed ..." 
> > discussion
> > is counter productive and adds to the confusion.
> 
> "Masters of the Unseeded" was the new backronym I heard.

Creepy.

I like it.


-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Iain Lane]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 04:06:16AM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On 26 July 2011 03:27, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio  wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Jeremy Bicha  wrote:
> 
> Why should I go through the bother of becoming an UCD as a
> prerequisite to further development privileges and responsibility if
> I'm already a Ubuntu Member?

You shouldn't. There's some misinformation being spread around.
Membership is a recognition of significant and sustained contribution.
It doesn't have anything to do with upload rights and is in no way a
prerequisite for getting them. You only need to apply for UCD or
whatever it becomes if you want to.

We certainly will always need to recruit new developers, but lowering
the barriers for membership is not the way to do it. Membership is well
defined and devaluing it will not help anyone. It's a recognition of
past good work. If people don't think membership is a thing worth
getting then that is another issue.

Cheers,

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Jeremy Bicha]

On 26 July 2011 03:27, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio  wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Jeremy Bicha  wrote:
>>
>> I disagree with your recommendation. I recently got my Ubuntu
>> membership through the Regional Boards and it turns out I was a good
>> candidate for the Ubuntu Contributing Developer (UCD) route which I
>> had actually not heard of yet. UCD provides no extra privileges or
>> status, and there's no point in anybody who is already a Ubuntu Member
>> getting UCD status before applying for MOTU or core-dev.
>
> Getting your Ubuntu membership granted through the IRC Council doesn't
> grant you any special rights either, why can the IRC Council bestow
> membership? It's not necessarily about the rights which you can
> receive; it's more about the who is best fit to evaluate your
> contribution.

Yes, I agree that UCD would have been a more precise fit to evaluate
my contributions but UCD had not been advertised or announced on the
Planet or wherever enough for me to have heard of it. It's also not
really on the Membership wikipage which I read multiple times to
self-evaluate and prepare for my membership application.

> Though it must be said that the Ubuntu Contributing Developer (UCD)
> route has never been very well defined or particularly compelling. In
> retrospect, I probably first applied to the UCD more out of my own
> insecurities about applying directly to the MOTU then any desire to
> necessarily become a UCD. There are currently only 24 direct members
> of ~universe-contributors. [0] Some have probably let their direct
> membership expire after obtaining membership in motu or core-dev, but
> the fact remains that many more people have become members ~ubuntu-dev
> without going through UCD. At the same time, even more people upload
> to Ubuntu each development cycle than ever become MOTU, core-devs or
> UCDs. UCD status could potentially play a role in retaining those
> contributors and increasing their involvement. The more connections
> someone has with a project the more likely they will continue to
> contribute and increase their level of commitment.

I don't see how gaining this extra title encourages additional
involvement. Maybe if the title meant something...

> Perhaps lowering the bar to becoming an UCD but at the same time
> increasing the social pressure to become one before becoming a MOTU,
> core-dev, or even a PPU might help create this atmosphere.

Why should I go through the bother of becoming an UCD as a
prerequisite to further development privileges and responsibility if
I'm already a Ubuntu Member?

Jeremy Bicha

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Andrew Starr-Bochicchio]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Jeremy Bicha  wrote:
>
> I disagree with your recommendation. I recently got my Ubuntu
> membership through the Regional Boards and it turns out I was a good
> candidate for the Ubuntu Contributing Developer (UCD) route which I
> had actually not heard of yet. UCD provides no extra privileges or
> status, and there's no point in anybody who is already a Ubuntu Member
> getting UCD status before applying for MOTU or core-dev.

Getting your Ubuntu membership granted through the IRC Council doesn't
grant you any special rights either, why can the IRC Council bestow
membership? It's not necessarily about the rights which you can
receive; it's more about the who is best fit to evaluate your
contribution.

Though it must be said that the Ubuntu Contributing Developer (UCD)
route has never been very well defined or particularly compelling. In
retrospect, I probably first applied to the UCD more out of my own
insecurities about applying directly to the MOTU then any desire to
necessarily become a UCD. There are currently only 24 direct members
of ~universe-contributors. [0] Some have probably let their direct
membership expire after obtaining membership in motu or core-dev, but
the fact remains that many more people have become members ~ubuntu-dev
without going through UCD. At the same time, even more people upload
to Ubuntu each development cycle than ever become MOTU, core-devs or
UCDs. UCD status could potentially play a role in retaining those
contributors and increasing their involvement. The more connections
someone has with a project the more likely they will continue to
contribute and increase their level of commitment.

My fear about archive reorg has been that when people gain per-package
upload rights for the small set of packages they care about they may
never feel the urge to go beyond their narrow involvement. In some
cases, that might mean that we gained an upstream or Debian developer
that would only care about their small sample of packages either way.
In other cases, we might be failing to increase the involvement of
someone otherwise would have otherwise gone deeper. It seems to me
that the social factor of becoming a MOTU encourages people to have an
attachment to the distro as a whole rather than to just a specific set
of packages.

The trick is to figure out a way to not lose the contributions of
those who have no desire to go deeper, but at the same time cultivate
an atmosphere that encourages those who would potentially do so.
Perhaps lowering the bar to becoming an UCD but at the same time
increasing the social pressure to become one before becoming a MOTU,
core-dev, or even a PPU might help create this atmosphere.

(As an aside, I'd just like to disagree with the previous proposal to
change the name of Ubuntu Contributing Developers to  Ubuntu
Development Members. It seems even more confusing to my ear. If that
name change goes ahead, we'll just have this same conversation again.
It does not make the status anymore clear. If you came in with little
to no previous knowledge, would you be able to tell the difference
between an Ubuntu Development Member or an Ubuntu Developer? I'd
rather see the UCD program go away altogether but allow the DMB to
directly create Ubuntu Members without any other title.)

-- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio

   Ubuntu Developer 
   Debian Contributor

   PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1


[0] https://launchpad.net/~universe-contributors/+members

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Jeremy Bicha]

On 25 July 2011 07:45, Benjamin Drung  wrote:
> Am Montag, den 25.07.2011, 13:01 +0200 schrieb Marcin Juszkiewicz:
>> On 22.07.2011 10:41, Daniel Holbach wrote:
>> > = Development Processes =
>>
>> >  (2) developer application docs:
>> >      - too complicated,
>> >      - unclear expectations
>>
>> Amounts of want-to-be-ubuntu-developer levels and their names are
>> misleading. I wanted to get rights to directly upload my packages and
>> when I discussed it with few developers I was told to apply for 'Ubuntu
>> Contributing Developer' (plus some text that MOTU status was replaced by
>> it from some long time Ubuntu devs).
>>
>> So I applied and (after ~6 weeks) during UDS-O DMB's meeting I got it.
>> Just to understand that what I really needed was 'Per Package Uploader'
>> level. So it edited my wiki page and applied again. Today I would
>> totally skip first phase as from my perspective it was useless waste of
>> time.
>
> I would recommend people to apply for 'Ubuntu Contributing Developer'
> before applying for MOTU or core-dev.

I disagree with your recommendation. I recently got my Ubuntu
membership through the Regional Boards and it turns out I was a good
candidate for the Ubuntu Contributing Developer (UCD) route which I
had actually not heard of yet. UCD provides no extra privileges or
status, and there's no point in anybody who is already a Ubuntu Member
getting UCD status before applying for MOTU or core-dev.

Jeremy Bicha

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: packageset restrictions and archive reorg (was: Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu")

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, July 25, 2011 04:52:42 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 03:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, July 25, 2011 03:48:38 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
> >> On 07/25/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 25, 2011 02:41:29 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> 
>  There was a discussion about it on IRC last week starting at
>  http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t20:43
>  
>  In particular, this is the part about whether MOTU can or can't touch
>  packages in package sets...
>  
> so should we make it a habit of making teams to match when we
>  make new packagesets?
>   Considering that AA always took care of components, we
>  probably ought adjust packageset change permissions to be union of DMB
>  and AA or similar.
> yes.  but that is Hard.
> (AIUI.)
>   Unless we expect the DMB to take over regular migration of
>  stuff for transitions, etc.
> maco: it's probably the most practical approach
>   cjwatson: It's hard to have a union of teams.  It's not hard
>  to have a team with membership limited to AA+DMB that owns the
>  packageset.  That said, it needs discussion and consensus before being
>  done.
> cjwatson: so then we just ask the TB "can you make packageset
>  $name with packages x,y,z and permissions to $team" and then never
>  have to bug you about that packageset again (for the most part...until
>  it needs a new package)
>   When we approve a PPU, does this necessitate the creation of
>  a packageset?
> persia: we often vote to create a packageset if the set being
>  requested seems reusable or is copied off someone else and is
>  therefore obviously being reused
>   maco: Right, when there is a team.  My concern is that we
>  grant packageset teams exclusive authority over packages unique to
>  their packagesets (which is why packageset teams are required to have
>  core-dev as a member).
> persia: i did not know of this requirement
>   persia: in terms of Archive Reorg, I don't think PPU should
>  have a packageset
>   This is incompatible with our statement that we *do not*
>  grant exclusive authority over packages for PPUs, once MOTU is
>  implemented as the inverse of all packagesets.
>    maco: if the package set is DMB-owned (some are like mozilla,
>  zope and some others) the DMB can add and remove packages from it once
>  the TB created the package set
>   maco: Failure to abide by the requirement today has a low
>  penalty, as Soyuz still supports component-based permissions.
> >>> 
> >>> Package set members having exclusive lock on packages is something that
> >>> has been discussed, but AIUI (except for packagesets corresponding to
> >>> Main) there are no such restrictive packagesets in place.  I can't
> >>> imagine why if I, to pick a random example, was part of the uploaders
> >>> for a Mono package set I would want to make it harder for other Ubuntu
> >>> developers to help with it.
> >>> 
> >>> I know that restrictive package sets was part of the original vision,
> >>> but I don't recall that ALL package sets were to be restrictive.  This
> >>> just seems like a recipe for increased balkanization in the Ubuntu
> >>> developer community. I don't think it's a good idea (regardless of it
> >>> was originally intended or not).
> >>> 
> >>> Scott K
> >> 
> >> AIUI, it wasn't that all packagesets would be totally restrictive in the
> >> reorg, but rather they would be core-dev + packageset uploaders for the
> >> ACLs.  The only difference WRT now would be MOTU access to current
> >> universe packages.  I think the understanding is that if we have a
> >> packageset, we have a subset of people caring for those packages.  Any
> >> qualified person wishing to care for these packages can then apply for
> >> the packageset.  MOTU would serve as generalists for the packages that
> >> have no particular group taking care of them in the archive.
> > 
> > I don't see any advantage to such a system over MOTU as generalists who
> > care for packages outside of restricted packagesets (and restricted
> > package sets are limited to what was historically Main and only expanded
> > after a lot of consideration).  I see lots of disadvantages.  If there
> > is some need for a packageset to be restricted, then I think I think
> > it's reasonable to consider, but that's a different model than we've
> > used so far.
> > 
> > So far, AIUI, the model has been to create package sets where it seemed
> > reasonable to grant limited upload rights to people who were specialists
> > in that type of package.  Outside of the traditional Main package sets I
> > don't think we've created a package set with the view that generalists
> > ought not touch such packages.
> > 
> > De facto we have a system where core-dev are unlimited generali

packageset restrictions and archive reorg (was: Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu")

[Micah Gersten]

On 07/25/2011 03:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2011 03:48:38 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
>> On 07/25/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 25, 2011 02:41:29 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
 There was a discussion about it on IRC last week starting at
 http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t20:43

 In particular, this is the part about whether MOTU can or can't touch
 packages in package sets...

  so should we make it a habit of making teams to match when we
 make new packagesets?
Considering that AA always took care of components, we
 probably ought adjust packageset change permissions to be union of DMB
 and AA or similar.
  yes.  but that is Hard.
  (AIUI.)
Unless we expect the DMB to take over regular migration of
 stuff for transitions, etc.
  maco: it's probably the most practical approach
cjwatson: It's hard to have a union of teams.  It's not hard
 to have a team with membership limited to AA+DMB that owns the
 packageset.  That said, it needs discussion and consensus before being
 done.
  cjwatson: so then we just ask the TB "can you make packageset
 $name with packages x,y,z and permissions to $team" and then never
 have to bug you about that packageset again (for the most part...until
 it needs a new package)
When we approve a PPU, does this necessitate the creation of
 a packageset?
  persia: we often vote to create a packageset if the set being
 requested seems reusable or is copied off someone else and is
 therefore obviously being reused
maco: Right, when there is a team.  My concern is that we
 grant packageset teams exclusive authority over packages unique to
 their packagesets (which is why packageset teams are required to have
 core-dev as a member).
  persia: i did not know of this requirement
persia: in terms of Archive Reorg, I don't think PPU should
 have a packageset
This is incompatible with our statement that we *do not*
 grant exclusive authority over packages for PPUs, once MOTU is
 implemented as the inverse of all packagesets.
 maco: if the package set is DMB-owned (some are like mozilla,
 zope and some others) the DMB can add and remove packages from it once
 the TB created the package set
maco: Failure to abide by the requirement today has a low
 penalty, as Soyuz still supports component-based permissions.
>>> Package set members having exclusive lock on packages is something that
>>> has been discussed, but AIUI (except for packagesets corresponding to
>>> Main) there are no such restrictive packagesets in place.  I can't
>>> imagine why if I, to pick a random example, was part of the uploaders
>>> for a Mono package set I would want to make it harder for other Ubuntu
>>> developers to help with it.
>>>
>>> I know that restrictive package sets was part of the original vision, but
>>> I don't recall that ALL package sets were to be restrictive.  This just
>>> seems like a recipe for increased balkanization in the Ubuntu developer
>>> community. I don't think it's a good idea (regardless of it was
>>> originally intended or not).
>>>
>>> Scott K
>> AIUI, it wasn't that all packagesets would be totally restrictive in the
>> reorg, but rather they would be core-dev + packageset uploaders for the
>> ACLs.  The only difference WRT now would be MOTU access to current
>> universe packages.  I think the understanding is that if we have a
>> packageset, we have a subset of people caring for those packages.  Any
>> qualified person wishing to care for these packages can then apply for
>> the packageset.  MOTU would serve as generalists for the packages that
>> have no particular group taking care of them in the archive.
> I don't see any advantage to such a system over MOTU as generalists who care 
> for packages outside of restricted packagesets (and restricted package sets 
> are limited to what was historically Main and only expanded after a lot of 
> consideration).  I see lots of disadvantages.  If there is some need for a 
> packageset to be restricted, then I think I think it's reasonable to 
> consider, 
> but that's a different model than we've used so far.
>
> So far, AIUI, the model has been to create package sets where it seemed 
> reasonable to grant limited upload rights to people who were specialists in 
> that type of package.  Outside of the traditional Main package sets I don't 
> think we've created a package set with the view that generalists ought not 
> touch such packages.
>
> De facto we have a system where core-dev are unlimited generalists and MOTU 
> are limited generalists.  Neither are excluded based on not being a package 
> set uploader.  As a core-dev I can upload Ubuntu Desktop packages (and have 
> done so as recently as last weekend).  I think that is a feature 

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, July 25, 2011 03:48:38 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, July 25, 2011 02:41:29 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> >> There was a discussion about it on IRC last week starting at
> >> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t20:43
> >> 
> >> In particular, this is the part about whether MOTU can or can't touch
> >> packages in package sets...
> >> 
> >>  so should we make it a habit of making teams to match when we
> >> make new packagesets?
> >>Considering that AA always took care of components, we
> >> probably ought adjust packageset change permissions to be union of DMB
> >> and AA or similar.
> >>  yes.  but that is Hard.
> >>  (AIUI.)
> >>Unless we expect the DMB to take over regular migration of
> >> stuff for transitions, etc.
> >>  maco: it's probably the most practical approach
> >>cjwatson: It's hard to have a union of teams.  It's not hard
> >> to have a team with membership limited to AA+DMB that owns the
> >> packageset.  That said, it needs discussion and consensus before being
> >> done.
> >>  cjwatson: so then we just ask the TB "can you make packageset
> >> $name with packages x,y,z and permissions to $team" and then never
> >> have to bug you about that packageset again (for the most part...until
> >> it needs a new package)
> >>When we approve a PPU, does this necessitate the creation of
> >> a packageset?
> >>  persia: we often vote to create a packageset if the set being
> >> requested seems reusable or is copied off someone else and is
> >> therefore obviously being reused
> >>maco: Right, when there is a team.  My concern is that we
> >> grant packageset teams exclusive authority over packages unique to
> >> their packagesets (which is why packageset teams are required to have
> >> core-dev as a member).
> >>  persia: i did not know of this requirement
> >>persia: in terms of Archive Reorg, I don't think PPU should
> >> have a packageset
> >>This is incompatible with our statement that we *do not*
> >> grant exclusive authority over packages for PPUs, once MOTU is
> >> implemented as the inverse of all packagesets.
> >> maco: if the package set is DMB-owned (some are like mozilla,
> >> zope and some others) the DMB can add and remove packages from it once
> >> the TB created the package set
> >>maco: Failure to abide by the requirement today has a low
> >> penalty, as Soyuz still supports component-based permissions.
> > 
> > Package set members having exclusive lock on packages is something that
> > has been discussed, but AIUI (except for packagesets corresponding to
> > Main) there are no such restrictive packagesets in place.  I can't
> > imagine why if I, to pick a random example, was part of the uploaders
> > for a Mono package set I would want to make it harder for other Ubuntu
> > developers to help with it.
> > 
> > I know that restrictive package sets was part of the original vision, but
> > I don't recall that ALL package sets were to be restrictive.  This just
> > seems like a recipe for increased balkanization in the Ubuntu developer
> > community. I don't think it's a good idea (regardless of it was
> > originally intended or not).
> > 
> > Scott K
> 
> AIUI, it wasn't that all packagesets would be totally restrictive in the
> reorg, but rather they would be core-dev + packageset uploaders for the
> ACLs.  The only difference WRT now would be MOTU access to current
> universe packages.  I think the understanding is that if we have a
> packageset, we have a subset of people caring for those packages.  Any
> qualified person wishing to care for these packages can then apply for
> the packageset.  MOTU would serve as generalists for the packages that
> have no particular group taking care of them in the archive.

I don't see any advantage to such a system over MOTU as generalists who care 
for packages outside of restricted packagesets (and restricted package sets 
are limited to what was historically Main and only expanded after a lot of 
consideration).  I see lots of disadvantages.  If there is some need for a 
packageset to be restricted, then I think I think it's reasonable to consider, 
but that's a different model than we've used so far.

So far, AIUI, the model has been to create package sets where it seemed 
reasonable to grant limited upload rights to people who were specialists in 
that type of package.  Outside of the traditional Main package sets I don't 
think we've created a package set with the view that generalists ought not 
touch such packages.

De facto we have a system where core-dev are unlimited generalists and MOTU 
are limited generalists.  Neither are excluded based on not being a package 
set uploader.  As a core-dev I can upload Ubuntu Desktop packages (and have 
done so as recently as last weekend).  I think that is a feature not a bug.  
Similarly I think having MOTU be able to upload to non-restricted 

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Micah Gersten]

On 07/25/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2011 02:41:29 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> ...
>> There was a discussion about it on IRC last week starting at
>> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t20:43
>>
>> In particular, this is the part about whether MOTU can or can't touch
>> packages in package sets...
>>
>>so should we make it a habit of making teams to match when we
>> make new packagesets?
>>  Considering that AA always took care of components, we
>> probably ought adjust packageset change permissions to be union of DMB
>> and AA or similar.
>>yes.  but that is Hard.
>>(AIUI.)
>>  Unless we expect the DMB to take over regular migration of
>> stuff for transitions, etc.
>>maco: it's probably the most practical approach
>>  cjwatson: It's hard to have a union of teams.  It's not hard
>> to have a team with membership limited to AA+DMB that owns the
>> packageset.  That said, it needs discussion and consensus before being
>> done.
>>cjwatson: so then we just ask the TB "can you make packageset
>> $name with packages x,y,z and permissions to $team" and then never
>> have to bug you about that packageset again (for the most part...until
>> it needs a new package)
>>  When we approve a PPU, does this necessitate the creation of
>> a packageset?
>>persia: we often vote to create a packageset if the set being
>> requested seems reusable or is copied off someone else and is
>> therefore obviously being reused
>>  maco: Right, when there is a team.  My concern is that we
>> grant packageset teams exclusive authority over packages unique to
>> their packagesets (which is why packageset teams are required to have
>> core-dev as a member).
>>persia: i did not know of this requirement
>>  persia: in terms of Archive Reorg, I don't think PPU should
>> have a packageset
>>  This is incompatible with our statement that we *do not*
>> grant exclusive authority over packages for PPUs, once MOTU is
>> implemented as the inverse of all packagesets.
>>   maco: if the package set is DMB-owned (some are like mozilla,
>> zope and some others) the DMB can add and remove packages from it once
>> the TB created the package set
>>  maco: Failure to abide by the requirement today has a low
>> penalty, as Soyuz still supports component-based permissions.
> Package set members having exclusive lock on packages is something that has 
> been discussed, but AIUI (except for packagesets corresponding to Main) there 
> are no such restrictive packagesets in place.  I can't imagine why if I, to 
> pick a random example, was part of the uploaders for a Mono package set I 
> would want to make it harder for other Ubuntu developers to help with it.
>
> I know that restrictive package sets was part of the original vision, but I 
> don't recall that ALL package sets were to be restrictive.  This just seems 
> like a recipe for increased balkanization in the Ubuntu developer community.  
> I don't think it's a good idea (regardless of it was originally intended or 
> not).
>
> Scott K
>
AIUI, it wasn't that all packagesets would be totally restrictive in the
reorg, but rather they would be core-dev + packageset uploaders for the
ACLs.  The only difference WRT now would be MOTU access to current
universe packages.  I think the understanding is that if we have a
packageset, we have a subset of people caring for those packages.  Any
qualified person wishing to care for these packages can then apply for
the packageset.  MOTU would serve as generalists for the packages that
have no particular group taking care of them in the archive.

Micah

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, July 25, 2011 02:41:29 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
...
> There was a discussion about it on IRC last week starting at
> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t20:43
> 
> In particular, this is the part about whether MOTU can or can't touch
> packages in package sets...
> 
> so should we make it a habit of making teams to match when we
> make new packagesets?
>   Considering that AA always took care of components, we
> probably ought adjust packageset change permissions to be union of DMB
> and AA or similar.
> yes.  but that is Hard.
> (AIUI.)
>   Unless we expect the DMB to take over regular migration of
> stuff for transitions, etc.
> maco: it's probably the most practical approach
>   cjwatson: It's hard to have a union of teams.  It's not hard
> to have a team with membership limited to AA+DMB that owns the
> packageset.  That said, it needs discussion and consensus before being
> done.
> cjwatson: so then we just ask the TB "can you make packageset
> $name with packages x,y,z and permissions to $team" and then never
> have to bug you about that packageset again (for the most part...until
> it needs a new package)
>   When we approve a PPU, does this necessitate the creation of
> a packageset?
> persia: we often vote to create a packageset if the set being
> requested seems reusable or is copied off someone else and is
> therefore obviously being reused
>   maco: Right, when there is a team.  My concern is that we
> grant packageset teams exclusive authority over packages unique to
> their packagesets (which is why packageset teams are required to have
> core-dev as a member).
> persia: i did not know of this requirement
>   persia: in terms of Archive Reorg, I don't think PPU should
> have a packageset
>   This is incompatible with our statement that we *do not*
> grant exclusive authority over packages for PPUs, once MOTU is
> implemented as the inverse of all packagesets.
>maco: if the package set is DMB-owned (some are like mozilla,
> zope and some others) the DMB can add and remove packages from it once
> the TB created the package set
>   maco: Failure to abide by the requirement today has a low
> penalty, as Soyuz still supports component-based permissions.

Package set members having exclusive lock on packages is something that has 
been discussed, but AIUI (except for packagesets corresponding to Main) there 
are no such restrictive packagesets in place.  I can't imagine why if I, to 
pick a random example, was part of the uploaders for a Mono package set I 
would want to make it harder for other Ubuntu developers to help with it.

I know that restrictive package sets was part of the original vision, but I 
don't recall that ALL package sets were to be restrictive.  This just seems 
like a recipe for increased balkanization in the Ubuntu developer community.  
I don't think it's a good idea (regardless of it was originally intended or 
not).

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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Scott Kitterman  wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2011 12:42:49 PM Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> ...
>> I agree that it is confusing, but I don't think it has to be. The
>> ArchiveReorganisation[1] wiki page hasn't been edited in the last 2
>> years and it hasn't been revisited at UDS. The process is effectively
>> stalled for now. The Components[2] sub-page says that there would no
>> longer be a separate main and universe and that MOTU (I guess it will
>> need a new name since it would technically be something different) would
>> take care of unseeded packages.
> ...
>
> At UDS for Karmic (Barcelona) we had a session that defined the current state
> of things.  We discussed renaming MOTU and decided against it.  IMO this sort
> of "Oh, it's different now ..." "MOTU will need to be renamed ..." discussion
> is counter productive and adds to the confusion.

"Masters of the Unseeded" was the new backronym I heard.

> As far as I'm aware, no restrictive package sets have been implemented yet
> that would prevent MOTU from uploading non-Main packages, so while there is a
> lot of theory, nothing has actually changed for MOTU.  What has changed is
> packagesets (and PPU) that give people most limited access to upload that are
> not MOTU.

There was a discussion about it on IRC last week starting at
http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t20:43

In particular, this is the part about whether MOTU can or can't touch
packages in package sets...

  so should we make it a habit of making teams to match when we
make new packagesets?
Considering that AA always took care of components, we
probably ought adjust packageset change permissions to be union of DMB
and AA or similar.
  yes.  but that is Hard.
  (AIUI.) 
Unless we expect the DMB to take over regular migration of
stuff for transitions, etc.
  maco: it's probably the most practical approach 
cjwatson: It's hard to have a union of teams.  It's not hard
to have a team with membership limited to AA+DMB that owns the
packageset.  That said, it needs discussion and consensus before being
done.
  cjwatson: so then we just ask the TB "can you make packageset
$name with packages x,y,z and permissions to $team" and then never
have to bug you about that packageset again (for the most part...until
it needs a new package)
When we approve a PPU, does this necessitate the creation of
a packageset?
  persia: we often vote to create a packageset if the set being
requested seems reusable or is copied off someone else and is
therefore obviously being reused
maco: Right, when there is a team.  My concern is that we
grant packageset teams exclusive authority over packages unique to
their packagesets (which is why packageset teams are required to have
core-dev as a member).
  persia: i did not know of this requirement  
persia: in terms of Archive Reorg, I don't think PPU should
have a packageset
This is incompatible with our statement that we *do not*
grant exclusive authority over packages for PPUs, once MOTU is
implemented as the inverse of all packagesets.
 maco: if the package set is DMB-owned (some are like mozilla,
zope and some others) the DMB can add and remove packages from it once
the TB created the package set
maco: Failure to abide by the requirement today has a low
penalty, as Soyuz still supports component-based permissions.



-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, July 25, 2011 12:42:49 PM Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
...
> I agree that it is confusing, but I don't think it has to be. The
> ArchiveReorganisation[1] wiki page hasn't been edited in the last 2
> years and it hasn't been revisited at UDS. The process is effectively
> stalled for now. The Components[2] sub-page says that there would no
> longer be a separate main and universe and that MOTU (I guess it will
> need a new name since it would technically be something different) would
> take care of unseeded packages.
...

At UDS for Karmic (Barcelona) we had a session that defined the current state 
of things.  We discussed renaming MOTU and decided against it.  IMO this sort 
of "Oh, it's different now ..." "MOTU will need to be renamed ..." discussion 
is counter productive and adds to the confusion.

As far as I'm aware, no restrictive package sets have been implemented yet 
that would prevent MOTU from uploading non-Main packages, so while there is a 
lot of theory, nothing has actually changed for MOTU.  What has changed is 
packagesets (and PPU) that give people most limited access to upload that are 
not MOTU.

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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)]

On 25/07/11 11:38 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)
>  wrote:
>> I come across this on a weekly basis and I don't know where it's coming
>> from. I have people at work who fix things all the time and upload it to
>> PPAs and when I ask them why they don't become MOTU so that they can fix
>> it directly in Ubuntu as well, they ask me "But isn't MOTU
>> dead/replaced/obsolete now?".
>>
>> Sure there are package sets / per package uploaders now, but that
>> doesn't make people who specifically care about universe any less
>> important than they've ever been.
> 
> There's still the question of what it'll be after archive reorg (if
> any more progress is made on archive reorg, that is). I've heard a few
> different potential paths for where MOTU will end up combining
> with core-dev to do everything that's not in a package set, staying
> separate and doing anything unseeded even if it's in a package set...
> very confusing.

I agree that it is confusing, but I don't think it has to be. The
ArchiveReorganisation[1] wiki page hasn't been edited in the last 2
years and it hasn't been revisited at UDS. The process is effectively
stalled for now. The Components[2] sub-page says that there would no
longer be a separate main and universe and that MOTU (I guess it will
need a new name since it would technically be something different) would
take care of unseeded packages.

Those pages list some unresolved issues and questions that still need to
be explored. I think in some ways some people jumped the gun with the
archive reorganisation. It's important to acknowledge that it's an
incomplete process and it's imho not a good idea to discard existing
processes until the new ones are somewhat ready to replace them.

I don't think the issues on that page need to wait until UDS to be
explored. If anything, I think the issues listed on that page was
already discussed enough at UDS and spending one or two hour-long
sessions in a few months will probably be less beneficial than taking it
up electronically and exploring it on an ongoing basis.

-Jonathan

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArchiveReorganisation
[2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArchiveReorganisation/Components

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Scott Kitterman  wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2011 11:34:47 AM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>> There is only one difference between UCD and any other Ubuntu Member:
>> UCD can vote in new-DMB elections and in theory vote if there's ever a
>> technical decision put to a vote, which I don't think there has been
>> since I became a MOTU.
>
> Do they?  I'm having trouble finding documentation on this.
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009-
> December/000659.html says ubuntu-dev (which UCD are not part of) and I think
> that's correct.  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard does not
> discuss how the DMB is formed (perhaps it should).

You're right. I should've double-checked the wiki page before saying that.

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Iain Lane]

Hiya,

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:59:08AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2011 11:34:47 AM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Scott Kitterman  
> wrote:
> > > I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing.  What it means is
> > > "Ubuntu member that got their membership based on development
> > > contribution and not some other kind".  Do we really need a different
> > > name for this?  It might be more clear to just have the DMB grant Ubuntu
> > > membership by name rather than have a separate name/team that doesn't
> > > actually mean anything different.
> > 
> > There is only one difference between UCD and any other Ubuntu Member:
> > UCD can vote in new-DMB elections and in theory vote if there's ever a
> > technical decision put to a vote, which I don't think there has been
> > since I became a MOTU.
> 
> Do they?  I'm having trouble finding documentation on this.  
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009-
> December/000659.html says ubuntu-dev (which UCD are not part of) and I think 
> that's correct.  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard does not 
> discuss how the DMB is formed (perhaps it should).

I share your interpretation too. Backed up by this page

  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil/Restaffing

Cheers,

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, July 25, 2011 11:34:47 AM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Scott Kitterman  
wrote:
> > I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing.  What it means is
> > "Ubuntu member that got their membership based on development
> > contribution and not some other kind".  Do we really need a different
> > name for this?  It might be more clear to just have the DMB grant Ubuntu
> > membership by name rather than have a separate name/team that doesn't
> > actually mean anything different.
> 
> There is only one difference between UCD and any other Ubuntu Member:
> UCD can vote in new-DMB elections and in theory vote if there's ever a
> technical decision put to a vote, which I don't think there has been
> since I became a MOTU.

Do they?  I'm having trouble finding documentation on this.  
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009-
December/000659.html says ubuntu-dev (which UCD are not part of) and I think 
that's correct.  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard does not 
discuss how the DMB is formed (perhaps it should).

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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, July 25, 2011 11:33:52 AM Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Am 25.07.2011 17:26, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > The DMB is somewhat different than the other non-RMB membership boards
> > because the DMB grants membership based on type of contribution
> > (development) rather than area of contribution (Kubuntu/Edubuntu/etc),
> > so I would not feel constrained to follow their example too closely. 
> > All of the membership boards (including the RMBs) are delegated from the
> > CC, so I also don't think it's necessary to treat the RMBs specially in
> > your discussion.
> 
> You could argue that the IRC Council and Forums Council also grant
> membership based on type of contribution.

You're right.  I forgot about 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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)
 wrote:
> I come across this on a weekly basis and I don't know where it's coming
> from. I have people at work who fix things all the time and upload it to
> PPAs and when I ask them why they don't become MOTU so that they can fix
> it directly in Ubuntu as well, they ask me "But isn't MOTU
> dead/replaced/obsolete now?".
>
> Sure there are package sets / per package uploaders now, but that
> doesn't make people who specifically care about universe any less
> important than they've ever been.

There's still the question of what it'll be after archive reorg (if
any more progress is made on archive reorg, that is). I've heard a few
different potential paths for where MOTU will end up combining
with core-dev to do everything that's not in a package set, staying
separate and doing anything unseeded even if it's in a package set...
very confusing.

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Scott Kitterman  wrote:
> I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing.  What it means is "Ubuntu
> member that got their membership based on development contribution and not
> some other kind".  Do we really need a different name for this?  It might be
> more clear to just have the DMB grant Ubuntu membership by name rather than
> have a separate name/team that doesn't actually mean anything different.

There is only one difference between UCD and any other Ubuntu Member:
UCD can vote in new-DMB elections and in theory vote if there's ever a
technical decision put to a vote, which I don't think there has been
since I became a MOTU.

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Daniel Holbach]

Hello,

Am 25.07.2011 17:26, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> The DMB is somewhat different than the other non-RMB membership boards 
> because 
> the DMB grants membership based on type of contribution (development) rather 
> than area of contribution (Kubuntu/Edubuntu/etc), so I would not feel 
> constrained to follow their example too closely.  All of the membership 
> boards 
> (including the RMBs) are delegated from the CC, so I also don't think it's 
> necessary to treat the RMBs specially in your discussion.  

You could argue that the IRC Council and Forums Council also grant
membership based on type of contribution.


> I think your proposed name change is definitely an improvement over UCD.

Agreed.


> I'm 
> not sure it's better than just making them Ubuntu members.  I think it might 
> be useful to hear from current UCD members to see if they have a strong 
> feeling of affinity with UCD or having some distinct membership group for 
> people 
> who got membership through development contributions.

Yes, that might be interesting.

Have a great day,
 Daniel

-- 
Ubuntu Cloud Days - 25th-26th July 2011
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCloudDays

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, July 25, 2011 11:11:43 AM Iain Lane wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 05:01:35PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > 
> > Am 25.07.2011 13:51, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > > On Monday, July 25, 2011 07:45:50 AM Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > >> Am Montag, den 25.07.2011, 13:01 +0200 schrieb Marcin Juszkiewicz:
> > >>> On 22.07.2011 10:41, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> >  = Development Processes =
> >  
> >   (2) developer application docs:
> >   - too complicated,
> >   - unclear expectations
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing.  What it means is
> > > "Ubuntu member that got their membership based on development
> > > contribution and not some other kind".  Do we really need a different
> > > name for this?  It might be more clear to just have the DMB grant
> > > Ubuntu membership by name rather than have a separate name/team that
> > > doesn't actually mean anything different.
> > 
> > I agree that the name is misleading and it's unfortunate that it
> > confuses applicants. It'd be good to change it something sensible. Even
> > if we just change it in the documentation.
> 
> I just added a discussion item to the next DMB agenda to rename the team
> to Ubuntu Development Members. This is in line with the other delegated
> (non RMB) membership names, and I think is much less confusing.

The DMB is somewhat different than the other non-RMB membership boards because 
the DMB grants membership based on type of contribution (development) rather 
than area of contribution (Kubuntu/Edubuntu/etc), so I would not feel 
constrained to follow their example too closely.  All of the membership boards 
(including the RMBs) are delegated from the CC, so I also don't think it's 
necessary to treat the RMBs specially in your discussion.  

I think your proposed name change is definitely an improvement over UCD.  I'm 
not sure it's better than just making them Ubuntu members.  I think it might 
be useful to hear from current UCD members to see if they have a strong 
feeling of affinity with UCD or having some distinct membership group for 
people 
who got membership through development contributions.

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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)]

On 25/07/11 10:42 AM, Iain Lane wrote:
>> Amounts of want-to-be-ubuntu-developer levels and their names are
>> misleading. I wanted to get rights to directly upload my packages and
>> when I discussed it with few developers I was told to apply for 'Ubuntu
>> Contributing Developer' (plus some text that MOTU status was replaced by
>> it from some long time Ubuntu devs).
> 
> I want to know who holds this opinion, and to set them straight. MOTU is
> not dead or dying, and it's really rather unfortunate that this
> misinformation is being spread.

+1!

I come across this on a weekly basis and I don't know where it's coming
from. I have people at work who fix things all the time and upload it to
PPAs and when I ask them why they don't become MOTU so that they can fix
it directly in Ubuntu as well, they ask me "But isn't MOTU
dead/replaced/obsolete now?".

Sure there are package sets / per package uploaders now, but that
doesn't make people who specifically care about universe any less
important than they've ever been.

-Jonathan

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Iain Lane]

Hello,

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 05:01:35PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> 
> Am 25.07.2011 13:51, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > On Monday, July 25, 2011 07:45:50 AM Benjamin Drung wrote:
> >> Am Montag, den 25.07.2011, 13:01 +0200 schrieb Marcin Juszkiewicz:
> >>> On 22.07.2011 10:41, Daniel Holbach wrote:
>  = Development Processes =
> 
>   (2) developer application docs:
>   - too complicated,
>   - unclear expectations
> [...]
> > I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing.  What it means is "Ubuntu 
> > member that got their membership based on development contribution and not 
> > some other kind".  Do we really need a different name for this?  It might 
> > be 
> > more clear to just have the DMB grant Ubuntu membership by name rather than 
> > have a separate name/team that doesn't actually mean anything different.
> 
> I agree that the name is misleading and it's unfortunate that it
> confuses applicants. It'd be good to change it something sensible. Even
> if we just change it in the documentation.

I just added a discussion item to the next DMB agenda to rename the team
to Ubuntu Development Members. This is in line with the other delegated
(non RMB) membership names, and I think is much less confusing.

Cheers,

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Daniel Holbach]

Hello everybody,

Am 25.07.2011 13:51, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> On Monday, July 25, 2011 07:45:50 AM Benjamin Drung wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 25.07.2011, 13:01 +0200 schrieb Marcin Juszkiewicz:
>>> On 22.07.2011 10:41, Daniel Holbach wrote:
 = Development Processes =

  (2) developer application docs:
  - too complicated,
  - unclear expectations
>>>
>>> Amounts of want-to-be-ubuntu-developer levels and their names are
>>> misleading. I wanted to get rights to directly upload my packages and
>>> when I discussed it with few developers I was told to apply for 'Ubuntu
>>> Contributing Developer' (plus some text that MOTU status was replaced by
>>> it from some long time Ubuntu devs).
>>>
>>> So I applied and (after ~6 weeks) during UDS-O DMB's meeting I got it.
>>> Just to understand that what I really needed was 'Per Package Uploader'
>>> level. So it edited my wiki page and applied again. Today I would
>>> totally skip first phase as from my perspective it was useless waste of
>>> time.

Thanks for your feedback.


>> I would recommend people to apply for 'Ubuntu Contributing Developer'
>> before applying for MOTU or core-dev.
> 
> I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing.  What it means is "Ubuntu 
> member that got their membership based on development contribution and not 
> some other kind".  Do we really need a different name for this?  It might be 
> more clear to just have the DMB grant Ubuntu membership by name rather than 
> have a separate name/team that doesn't actually mean anything different.

I agree that the name is misleading and it's unfortunate that it
confuses applicants. It'd be good to change it something sensible. Even
if we just change it in the documentation.

The reason this is a separate team (as it is for members approved by the
Forums/Kubuntu/Edubuntu/Ubuntu IRC/... Councils) is to

 1) allow these governance boards to grant separate privileges (ie:
commit rights, etc.)
 2) To allow voting processes for trusted members of a part of our
community. (ie: Kubuntu members vote the Kubuntu Council.)

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil/Restaffing#Calls_for_Nominations
has the current list of teams and how voting (at least for
restaffing works there.)

Still all the membership teams above are member of ~ubuntumembers.

Have a great day,
 Daniel

-- 
Ubuntu Cloud Days - 25th-26th July 2011
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCloudDays

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Iain Lane]

Hi there,

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 01:01:39PM +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> On 22.07.2011 10:41, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > = Development Processes =
> 
> >  (2) developer application docs:
> >  - too complicated,
> >  - unclear expectations
> 
> Amounts of want-to-be-ubuntu-developer levels and their names are
> misleading. I wanted to get rights to directly upload my packages and
> when I discussed it with few developers I was told to apply for 'Ubuntu
> Contributing Developer' (plus some text that MOTU status was replaced by
> it from some long time Ubuntu devs).

I want to know who holds this opinion, and to set them straight. MOTU is
not dead or dying, and it's really rather unfortunate that this
misinformation is being spread.

> So I applied and (after ~6 weeks) during UDS-O DMB's meeting I got it.
> Just to understand that what I really needed was 'Per Package Uploader'
> level. So it edited my wiki page and applied again. Today I would
> totally skip first phase as from my perspective it was useless waste of
> time.

That is unfortunate. Could you help to make this not happen to anyone
else by clarifying the documentation?

Cheers,

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Luke Faraone]

On 07/25/2011 10:35 AM, Iain Lane wrote:
> I just updated that page a bit. It's probably not clear enough that
> UCD is 'just' Ubuntu Membership granted by the DMB. Please help me
> out by finding a way to clarify this.

It would be clear if we just called it "Ubuntu Membership", rather than
having a specific, confusingly similar name for it.

Is there a reason that it needs to be called something different?

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Iain Lane]

Hello,

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 04:10:37PM +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> On 25.07.2011 13:51, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>> So I applied and (after ~6 weeks) during UDS-O DMB's meeting I got it.
> >>> > > Just to understand that what I really needed was 'Per Package 
> >>> > > Uploader'
> >>> > > level. So it edited my wiki page and applied again. Today I would
> >>> > > totally skip first phase as from my perspective it was useless waste 
> >>> > > of
> >>> > > time.
> 
> >> > I would recommend people to apply for 'Ubuntu Contributing Developer'
> >> > before applying for MOTU or core-dev.
> 
> > I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing.  What it means is "Ubuntu 
> > member that got their membership based on development contribution and not 
> > some other kind".  Do we really need a different name for this?  It might 
> > be 
> > more clear to just have the DMB grant Ubuntu membership by name rather than 
> > have a separate name/team that doesn't actually mean anything different.
> 
> I think that when someone wants to apply for PPU (like me) then
> documentation should be more clear that UCD and PPU can be done at same
> time. Or UCD status should be given to PPU automatically.

It is (well, membership via ~ubuntu-dev):

  Per-package uploaders [...] are implicitly considered Ubuntu Members

from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#PerPackage

I just updated that page a bit. It's probably not clear enough that UCD
is 'just' Ubuntu Membership granted by the DMB. Please help me out by
finding a way to clarify this.

Cheers,

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

On 25.07.2011 13:51, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> So I applied and (after ~6 weeks) during UDS-O DMB's meeting I got it.
>>> > > Just to understand that what I really needed was 'Per Package Uploader'
>>> > > level. So it edited my wiki page and applied again. Today I would
>>> > > totally skip first phase as from my perspective it was useless waste of
>>> > > time.

>> > I would recommend people to apply for 'Ubuntu Contributing Developer'
>> > before applying for MOTU or core-dev.

> I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing.  What it means is "Ubuntu 
> member that got their membership based on development contribution and not 
> some other kind".  Do we really need a different name for this?  It might be 
> more clear to just have the DMB grant Ubuntu membership by name rather than 
> have a separate name/team that doesn't actually mean anything different.

I think that when someone wants to apply for PPU (like me) then
documentation should be more clear that UCD and PPU can be done at same
time. Or UCD status should be given to PPU automatically.

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, July 25, 2011 07:45:50 AM Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Montag, den 25.07.2011, 13:01 +0200 schrieb Marcin Juszkiewicz:
> > On 22.07.2011 10:41, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > > = Development Processes =
> > > 
> > >  (2) developer application docs:
> > >  - too complicated,
> > >  - unclear expectations
> > 
> > Amounts of want-to-be-ubuntu-developer levels and their names are
> > misleading. I wanted to get rights to directly upload my packages and
> > when I discussed it with few developers I was told to apply for 'Ubuntu
> > Contributing Developer' (plus some text that MOTU status was replaced by
> > it from some long time Ubuntu devs).
> > 
> > So I applied and (after ~6 weeks) during UDS-O DMB's meeting I got it.
> > Just to understand that what I really needed was 'Per Package Uploader'
> > level. So it edited my wiki page and applied again. Today I would
> > totally skip first phase as from my perspective it was useless waste of
> > time.
> 
> I would recommend people to apply for 'Ubuntu Contributing Developer'
> before applying for MOTU or core-dev.

I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing.  What it means is "Ubuntu 
member that got their membership based on development contribution and not 
some other kind".  Do we really need a different name for this?  It might be 
more clear to just have the DMB grant Ubuntu membership by name rather than 
have a separate name/team that doesn't actually mean anything different.

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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Benjamin Drung]

Am Montag, den 25.07.2011, 13:01 +0200 schrieb Marcin Juszkiewicz:
> On 22.07.2011 10:41, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > = Development Processes =
> 
> >  (2) developer application docs:
> >  - too complicated,
> >  - unclear expectations
> 
> Amounts of want-to-be-ubuntu-developer levels and their names are
> misleading. I wanted to get rights to directly upload my packages and
> when I discussed it with few developers I was told to apply for 'Ubuntu
> Contributing Developer' (plus some text that MOTU status was replaced by
> it from some long time Ubuntu devs).
> 
> So I applied and (after ~6 weeks) during UDS-O DMB's meeting I got it.
> Just to understand that what I really needed was 'Per Package Uploader'
> level. So it edited my wiki page and applied again. Today I would
> totally skip first phase as from my perspective it was useless waste of
> time.

I would recommend people to apply for 'Ubuntu Contributing Developer'
before applying for MOTU or core-dev.

-- 
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: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

On 22.07.2011 10:41, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> = Development Processes =

>  (2) developer application docs:
>  - too complicated,
>  - unclear expectations

Amounts of want-to-be-ubuntu-developer levels and their names are
misleading. I wanted to get rights to directly upload my packages and
when I discussed it with few developers I was told to apply for 'Ubuntu
Contributing Developer' (plus some text that MOTU status was replaced by
it from some long time Ubuntu devs).

So I applied and (after ~6 weeks) during UDS-O DMB's meeting I got it.
Just to understand that what I really needed was 'Per Package Uploader'
level. So it edited my wiki page and applied again. Today I would
totally skip first phase as from my perspective it was useless waste of
time.

In few months I will try to apply for MOTU probably but before filling
forms I will triple check what is current status and talk with more devs
about it.

-- 
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"

[David Henningsson]

On 2011-07-22 10:41, Daniel Holbach wrote:

Hello everybody,

for a while we've had a section in Ubuntu developer applications [1]
which was named "what I like least in Ubuntu". This is very valuable
feedback, since it comes from (relatively) new contributors who don't
have gotten used to warts and shortcomings in the development world yet.

David Henningson asked me what was being done to this feedback in
general. Members of the DMB told me that they regularly ask questions
about the raised items in the application meetings and try to encourage
the applicant to start a conversation about the problems or get involved
in fixing them.

I thought it was a good idea to summarise the items the applicants
mentioned in the last 6 months (source: [2]) and start a discussion
around them here.

Grouped by category, numbers in parentheses are the number of mentions.


= Development Processes =
  (4) review process:
  - too slow (2)
  - reviewers should go the extra mile (be more humane)
  - there should be more peer review
  (2) developer application docs:
  - too complicated,
  - unclear expectations
  (1) SRU process
  (1) missing mentoring programme
  (1) top-down decisions
  (1) bureaucracy


= QA =
  (3) release cycle:
  - short release cycle brings in many regressions/bugs often, (2)
  - changes in LTS cycle too agressive
  (2) bug triage:
  - too hasty
  - so many bugs, can't give bugs the attention they deserve
  (1) poorly tested software is in the archive


= Development Workflow =
  (3) peers not trying to get stuff into Debian
  (1) shortcomings of UDD


= Software =
  (1) Qt translations not in LP(?)
  (1) U-boot binaries for each supported OMAP3 board
  (1) shortcomings of Java in Debian/Ubuntu
  (1) can't use Magic Mouse fully
  (1) the lack or backwardness of C# bindings
  (1) PulseAudio problems (in the process of being fixed)
  (1) package maintenance of claws


= Other =
  (1) Virtually no community involvement or development into Ubuntu
  backend infrastructure(?)


Feel free to discuss the details on this mailing list, but please
consider renaming the subject of the mail.

Thanks in advance.

Have a great day,
  Daniel

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess
[2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/devel-permissions



Excellent, this was just the kind of aggregation I was looking for! Thanks!

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a separate cause that stands 
out from the crowd, and that we could focus on addressing. One could 
possibly note that the software itself is a clear minority compared to 
development and QA, i e it's more about "how we do it" than "what we do".


--
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
http://launchpad.net/~diwic

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel