On Tuesday 23 October 2007 09:01, Gauvain Pocentek wrote: > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 08:19, Gauvain Pocentek wrote: > >> Please let's try to avoid that kind of behaviour, there are smarter ways > >> to deal with problems in Ubuntu. > > > > What do you suggest? Once someone is a MOTU (or elected to MOTU Council) > > there isn't AFAIK any process to deal with removal. > > So one mistake and you're already wanting to drop upload priviledges?
I didn't say I wanted that. I was just pointing out that the processes are one way, so I think it's prudent to be careful going through the gate. > Anyway, I was more talking about the "I blame you on an ML". Maybe this > could have been discussed in irc queries, in a private mail to the MC > members It's to late for that. The election has already started. If someone's fitness to be on MC is at issue (and personally, I think it is), then in the view of the MOTUs who are currently voting is the ONLY place to have that discussion. > > Personally, I was stunned by the discovery that any MOTU would upload > > something to proposed that not only had they not tested, they didn't even > > know HOW to test. I've done good work with geser in the past, but this > > case just doesn't strike me as being an example of good judgement at > > work. > > Didn't he sent a mail to ask for tests? But again, I'm not judging the > facts, but how the whole history turned into some kind of war. The same mail said he didn't even know how to test it yet. Personally, I don't ascribe to the "Whack the heck, it's only Universe" theory of Universe QA. Developers have a responsibility to do their best to make sure what they upload works. While some of the language has been harsh, I don't think it's some kind of war. My first post on the topic asked for a clarification of policy. I was suprised the "what the heck, upload it" view got any support at all, but it did and so we are clarifying the policy. I'm glad I brought it up. > > I think, particularly as we have no voice in who gets nominated, that us > > regular MOTUs should be able to closely question the people that the > > CC/TB have decided are to be the masters of the masters so to speak. > > AFAICT you already do that and your judgment is taken into account. I don't recall being asked who I thought should be nominated to MC. AFAIK, no MOTU outside MC was asked. These candidates are imposed from above. > > This is a one > > time decision and it needs to be right. Personally, I'm more worried > > about getting the best MOTU council possible to make good decisions for > > our future than I am about a few ruffled feathers along the way. > > If it's really something that MOTUs feel, it's right the time to discuss > it in a meeting or in an other ML thread to maybe set up new policies. I > don't think that the MC has ever rejected discussion of new proposals > from the developers community. I don't think you are understanding my point. This isn't about proposals being rejected, it's about trusting the judgement of the people who are making the decisions for Universe. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
