Hi Steve, On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 04:22:58PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hello, > […] > So my question to each of the candidates is this. As a member of the DMB, > what would you do to remove this uncertainty around when people are ready to > apply, reducing the number of rejections (whether those are hard rejects, or > soft "redirects") at DMB meetings?
[ Disclaimer: I'm currently on the DMB but I wasn't at that particular meeting, so I won't comment on these particular cases. ] I think you're right in identifying this as an area of concern, and I tried to address this briefly in my election statement [1]. I'll try to restate it a bit now. As others have said, it's probably not going to be possible to reduce the process to going through a checklist. What we can do is to be responsive /and proactive/ when applications first come in (or even before then, if applicants contact the DMB speculatively or if teams like the DAT want to link up with us which I think would be a good idea). It's true that most of the information required to make a decision is often available before the meeting in which the decision is ultimately taken. Given that, if a DMB member feels sure that they would want to vote negatively on an application, they should feel able to act on their own initiative and contact the applicant explaining so. I expect this to be rather less negative than a similar outcome after a full round of voting at a meeting. It occurs to me now that if this would actually be slightly more opaque if it were implemented as such feedback would be in private. [1] talks about providing feedback after applications fall at a meeting, but this could also be extended to situations where applicants defer themselves after correspondence with the DMB prior to a meeting. There are a few avenues that members can use, depending on the situation, to communicate their recommendations. [2] and [3], public mail to devel-permissions or private mail to the endorsers. These would help to build up a body of case law. The "how do I know when I am ready" question is one I recognise as one of the toughest for applicants. It's tough for the DMB to articulate it too. I recognise that it can feel like the DMB is making arbitrary decisions or is too quick to defer applications. Greater transparency would, in my opinion, be the best antidote to ill-will that unfortunately can sometimes breed. Finally I want to state that while deferrals are contentious decisions that sometimes generate a lot of discussion, the vast majority of candidates the DMB evaluates are approved for the upload rights they seek (sometimes they are granted even broader permissions if that seems appropriate). I feel pleased and proud when I look back on the excellent developers that have been approved during my time on the DMB. Cheers, -- Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ la...@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ la...@ubuntu.com ] [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IainLane/DMB2013 [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess [3] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers
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