On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:41:02AM +0000, Robie Basak wrote: > > For what it's worth, I don't think that we've seen there be an (unspoken > > or otherwise) requirement for MOTU as a prequisite for core-dev for a > > long time now. > > I haven't seen any evidence of an (unspoken or otherwise) _requirement_ > to get MOTU before core-dev, either. But I have seen an unspoken > _expectation_ of this path from multiple applicants (not just Canonical > STS). Not from the DMB; from prospective new developers.
OK, but then there is a task to work towards removing that expectation. > > I think that I was in the more liberal wing of the DMB during my time, > > but I would have been happy to grant core-dev if the applicant has shown > > through sponsored uploads to any series that they are a very competent > > developer, that upload rights to main are required for their > > contributions, and if I was satisfied by some combination of the > > interview and their contributions that they understand the policy and > > procedure of the distro. That includes knowledge of both SRUs and > > development release uploads, and convincing you that they won't > > overreach and will ask for help when they need it. > > My "contribute in area B before they can upload directly to unrelated > area A" statement applies to this scenario, too, not just in relation to > MOTU/core dev. We're currently requiring applicants to understand more > than is just required for SRUs in order to upload SRUs. I feel that your > statement above is saying this as well. For core-dev I would expect some knowledge of the main parts of Ubuntu's process. I don't think that I would expect to see contributions in the form of uploads. If those exist then they might be a demonstration of knowledge, but that could also happen in another way. It's up to the DMB. If the group thinks that for core-dev there should be significant contributions to the development release specifically, as well as demonstrating an understanding of its process, then you probably do want to create a new class that doesn't require this. That would certainly be acceptable. I'm saying that I don't set the bar high enough to see the required level of understanding as being very difficult to achieve if you've already contributed via sponsored uploads elsewhere, so I personally don't see the added complexity as being necessary. -- Iain Lane [ [email protected] ] Debian Developer [ [email protected] ] Ubuntu Developer [ [email protected] ]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
