Big +1 to what Emmet said. On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Emmet Hikory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Murray wrote: > > James Westby wrote: > >> I have two suggestions. First, that we make the universe-contributors > >> part of bugcontrol, as these people have been active in the community > >> for a while, and have been advocated by various developers, so we can > >> be reasonably sure that they won't abuse their powers or be rude to > >> bug reporters. > > > > This sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Is there a group that > > oversees the universe-contributors team that we should contact? > > Additionally, is there a way to get in touch with this group of people > > so we can inform them about their new abilities and responsibilities? > > MOTU Council oversees the that team. The best contact for team > members is likely [EMAIL PROTECTED]: it is expected that > all members are subscribed to this list. Further, if there is to be a > communication on expected activities, it may make sense to also share > that with MOTU and other interested parties. > > >> Secondly, we could have an application process for someone active in > >> the development community that just involves checking a random sample > >> of bugs from their bug page. > > > > I'd rather that they submit five bugs as happens with the regular > > application process. > > I'd like to speak in favour of the normal application process. > Even those prospective developers who primarily work on workflow bugs > are expected to also look at the other bugs in the packages they > update. This may adding links to upstream bugs, closing bugs now > fixed (e.g. merges or syncs), improving bug descriptions, providing > bug fixes, etc. Despite the focus of the interested individual on > becoming a developer, they ought be expected to take developer-type > actions on bugs, which should ideally track the existing bug control > guidelines fairly closel. > > > Subsequently, I think the applicant should apply using the current > > application process but identify themselves as a prospective MOTU or > > universe-contributor. > > I don't think there should be a hard rule enforced that applicants > who are prospective developers identify themselves as such: if the bug > control work done is sufficient for them to be accepted, this should > stand alone. That said, if someone is consistently understanding > bugs, documenting that understanding as a fix, getting it uploaded, > and closing the bugs I would expect that person to be considered to be > doing appropriate bug control (even in the case where it is simply > application of upstream fixes into Ubuntu). Alternately, if someone > is filing lots of sync bugs and wants to mark them all wishlist > without also reviewing other bugs in the packages or helping with the > bug triage process, I'm less confident they should be a member of > bugcontrol. > > -- > Emmet HIKORY > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol<https://launchpad.net/%7Eubuntu-bugcontrol> > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol<https://launchpad.net/%7Eubuntu-bugcontrol> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Cody A.W. Somerville Software Engineer Red Cow Marketing & Technologies, Inc. Office: 506-458-1290 Toll Free: 1-877-733-2699 Fax: 506-453-9112 Cell: 506-449-5899 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.redcow.ca
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
