Hi! Thank you Robie for drafting this!
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:11:33AM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> # Team Roles
>
> For clarity, initially there will be two roles in the team: 1) a
> leadership role, driving re-establishment and reform; 2) people doing
> the regular day-to-day work, such as reviews.
>
> I think the first role could only effectively be taken by suitably
> qualified, existing and established Ubuntu developers. We'll see if
> there are any other volunteers, and if there are, see if there is
> consensus that they can also take on the role.
I agree on this.
> The second role would be open to anyone who meets the requirements of
> the new process, which is yet to be defined.
I also hereby volunteer me for the day-to-day tasks.
Mostly, I don't have enough cycles available to drive discussions and
anything related on how to reform the process, else I'd volunteer for
more, but if anything I'm positive I can handle reviews and similar.
As such, I'm happy to follow Dan or whoever is going to take lead on the
project, provided that they present a viable reform path.
> # Team responsibilities
>
> * Establish and manage an effective process to handle backport
> requests. Any review process must accept or reject every backport
> request on its technical merit, and be neutral to who is requesting
> it[1].
>
> * Maintain the backports pocket based on this process, making sure that
> all requests receive an appropriate answer in a reasonable amount of
> time.
>
> * Maintain quality in the backports pocket, where the definition of
> quality is driven by the team, but defined by consensus within the
> wider Ubuntu developer community.
>
> * Handle your own process reform and membership management, but making
> sure that any responsibility can be carried by any contributor who
> demonstrates the required capacity and competence. Specifically,
> since the DMB has never managed membership of ~ubuntu-backporters,
> there is no requirement for the DMB to be involved. Unless you want
> to delegate that, in which case that's a conversation to have with
> the DMB.
I don't think there is a need to involve the DMB here. I'd just say
that any members should be part of ~ubuntu-dev already, nothing more
complex than that.
> How does this sound? Feedback appreciated.
Nothing to add, your starter is great already, now we only need a lead
to lead :)
> [1] To be clear, I believe that the current process requires
> sponsorship/upload of a suitable backport, and the backporters team only
> reviews once an upload has taken place.
I believe you are wrong on this.
They way the current process is worded, uploads should be done by people
in ~ubuntu-backports only, effectively causing a huge load on the team.
The reform needed here (as you more or less imply), is that upload
rights should follow the usual rules, with ~ubuntu-backports only
reviewing the uploads once they end in the "unapproved" queue (i have no
idea how the staging queue for backports is currently called).
> [2] Availability of sponsors is a separate issue. I'd like to address
> that too, but I don't think it's appropriate to pull that into the scope
> of backports reform.
Aye, unrelated.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
