On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 09:47:37 -0500, Dan Streetman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:21 AM Alex Murray <alex.mur...@canonical.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi Ubuntu Backporters Team, >> >> The Tech Board is hoping to progress the ratification of a charter for >> the Ubuntu Backporters Team as discussed previously on a number of >> occasions. My understanding is that these previous discussions between >> the Backporters Team and the Tech Board have not been able to reach a >> consensus on both the level of detail and the requirements that would be >> stipulated in the Charter. >> >> The previous drafts at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Charter >> seemed to contain a mix of both high level statements/directions for the >> team as well as lower-level policies for the operation of the team. I >> notice that now most of these lower-level details have moved into >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Policies but there is still no >> higher level Charter outlining the purpose and guiding principles for >> the team. >> >> As such I propose the following as a starting point, which is based on >> the previous proposal from rbasak[1] but which tries to reduce any >> potential burdens placed on the team by such an overall Charter: >> >> >> * Establish and manage an effective process to handle backport >> requests based solely on their technical merit. > > I'm not sure this is correct, to handle requests *solely* on technical > merit. For example, part of the backport process is the expectation > that the backport requestor/uploader will remain responsible for > further backports as needed; if an uploaded backport seems technically > correct but the backports team does not believe the uploader would be > responsible for further uploads, the backports team should be able to > reject the upload on that basis. > > Stating "solely on their technical merit" places undue restrictions on > our team, I believe. >
I feel it is perhaps a bit too onerous to expect that just because a user contributes one backport that they then should be expected to keep doing backports for that package - this is placing undue restrictions on your possible contributors. Regardless though, I don't think the backports team should be trying to guess whether someone is likely to contribute further backports in the future - this leaves too much chance for the team to ignore proposed backports on arbitrary grounds. As such, this is the exact point of the statement "solely on their technical merit" - to give confidence to prospective users who want to contribute backports that their submissions will be treated in a fair manner. >> >> * Maintain the backports pocket based on this process, with an aim to >> ensure all requests are responded to in a reasonable amount of time. > > What does "reasonable amount of time" mean? > This is purposely non-specific - but again is here to give prospective users confidence that their submissions will not sit ignored for an indefinite period. >> >> * Maintain quality in the backports pocket, where the definition of >> quality is driven by the team, but decided by consensus within the >> wider Ubuntu developer community. > > I'm not quite sure what this statement is trying to achieve, or what > it would mean in practice. Can you clarify? > This allows the backports team to take the lead on defining what is required in terms of quality for submissions but also allows the community to give feedback / input as well. >> >> * Handle process reform and membership management internally, ensuring >> that any responsibility can be carried by any contributor who >> demonstrates the required capacity and competence. > > I think this statement is even harder to read, can you clarify and/or reword > it? > > For example, if we must handle process/membership "internally", does > that mean we can't get outside input on those subjects? If not, then > what is the point of the statement at all? > This delegates authority to the backports team for these functions but again makes a statement that hopefully gives prospective contributors confidence that they can contribute just by demonstrating their abilities. I don't see why this statement as written would preclude getting outside input. >> >> >> I hope this can serve as a basis to reach a consensus that is amendable >> to both the Backporters Team and Technical Board. > > As a counter proposal, what do you think of this simple "charter": > > * Maintain the Ubuntu "backports" pocket. > Whilst this is nice and simple, I feel it leaves far too much open to interpretation. So I think we are starting to get to the crux of the difference in viewpoints from the TB to the backporters team. Due to the past history of some perceived dysfunction within the backporters team, I feel it is important to try and set some more specific expectations for how the newly rebooted team would function - particularly to an outsider wishing to contribute. This is not trying to constrain the efforts of those on the team in any way, but more trying to set an expectation of quality for all possible contributions, and to also give contributors confidence that their submissions won't potentially be in vain. Overall, this is really about trying to ensure the backports subcommunity is vibrant and welcoming to encourage contributions, and not potentially perceived as a gated group that is only accessible to the special few. >> >> I welcome any feedback from all involved (please note I am not >> subscribed to the ubuntu-backports list so please CC me directly on >> responses). >> >> Thanks, >> Alex >> >> >> [1] >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/2022-February/022687.html >> >> -- >> ubuntu-backports mailing list >> ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports -- ubuntu-backports mailing list ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
