On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Chase Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > The other thing that I forgot to mention is that moving to a "trust" > model of requirements resolves the issue that I face: acceptable for > core-dev, but not for motu, and thus I'm not acceptable for core-dev. I > was told that I would be strongly considered for core-dev because of the > amount of work I've done on packages in main. However, core-dev implies > MOTU, and since I haven't done any (well, very little) universe work, I > couldn't be a MOTU. Hence, I'm stuck, and I seriously have no extra time > in the day to do any universe work.
We've had a trust model going -way- back (e.g. in discussions about MOTU membership back at UDS google, I distinctly remember exactly that theme). So I wouldn't say 'moving to a "trust" model of...' - we certainly /had/ one, where we wanted a combination of trust (will do the right thing, won't abuse privileges, knows when they are out of depth) and -enough- technical competency, and -significant, sustained- contribution. Perhaps we've had a slow evolution of the assessments to look more at proven technical competency than trust; and if so, I think thats a mistake. Lets get back to the basics: - is the person contributing to Ubuntu in the long haul [yes, then they should be a member] - are they trust worthy enough to let them upload to the primary archive [yes, then they should get -some- upload rights, whether that is PPU, MOTU or core] - are they technically competent to upload directly to 'main' ? [yes, core-dev] -Rob -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
