FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-07-2009, 08:46 PM
Bryce Harrington
 
Default Developer Application Criteria - Was New Application processes

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 02:18:09PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 January 2009 13:22, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > Dustin Kirkland schrieb:
> > > I really believe the MOTU and Core-Dev application processes would
> > > greatly benefit from some minimal, objective criteria. It should be
> > > perfectly clear that meeting these objective criteria will not be
> > > sufficient, alone, to achieve MOTU/Core-Dev. However, I think there
> > > absolutely must be something more objective for an aspiring
> > > MOTU/CoreDev to achieve before taking the time/effort to apply.
>
> I concur with Dustin's observations about some people getting caught up in
> arbitrary requirements. I'd go the other way though. I don't think there is
> any need for X uploads, Y months as a MOTU before applying for core-dev, etc.

I think I understand where Dustin is coming from - I too had a similar
reaction when going through the MOTU/CoreDev processes. It has sort of
a "You're ready when you know you're ready" zeitgeist, which is fine and
good, but come on, how do I know when I'm ready? :-)

Now as a sponsor, if I had to explicitly list give considerations for a
candidate, it might look something like this:

* Trustworthiness
* Carefulness
* Experience
* Maturity
* Desire
* Skill

The first five are obviously subjective, and not something that can
really be boiled down to a checklist of requirements or anything.
Indeed, a set of rules could end up overweighting considerations of
skill vs. the other items.

In my own case, I put much higher expectations on myself for packaging
skill level than probably were necessary in hindsight. I really had no
idea what my sponsors or the board would be expecting in terms of skill,
so went way overboard in studying packaging intricacies and esoteric details
(which subsequently has helped me quite a bit in my work, but added a
lot of delay in my process, particularly coupled with the lengthy
application process itself).


For improving the process just for the skill-level consideration, what I
would like to see is sort of a self-directed "exercise workbook", with
sets of packaging, bug triage, testing, documentation, etc. tasks. For
sponsorees with limited skill, this would provide guidance in gaining
it. For sponsorees already with more than adequate skill, this would
help them calibrate their own expectations. For sponsors, knowing that
a candidate has gone through the workbook would help to answer that last
bulletpoint, so they can focus on judging the others.

Bryce

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 01-07-2009, 08:46 PM
Bryce Harrington
 
Default Developer Application Criteria - Was New Application processes

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 02:18:09PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 January 2009 13:22, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > Dustin Kirkland schrieb:
> > > I really believe the MOTU and Core-Dev application processes would
> > > greatly benefit from some minimal, objective criteria. It should be
> > > perfectly clear that meeting these objective criteria will not be
> > > sufficient, alone, to achieve MOTU/Core-Dev. However, I think there
> > > absolutely must be something more objective for an aspiring
> > > MOTU/CoreDev to achieve before taking the time/effort to apply.
>
> I concur with Dustin's observations about some people getting caught up in
> arbitrary requirements. I'd go the other way though. I don't think there is
> any need for X uploads, Y months as a MOTU before applying for core-dev, etc.

I think I understand where Dustin is coming from - I too had a similar
reaction when going through the MOTU/CoreDev processes. It has sort of
a "You're ready when you know you're ready" zeitgeist, which is fine and
good, but come on, how do I know when I'm ready? :-)

Now as a sponsor, if I had to explicitly list give considerations for a
candidate, it might look something like this:

* Trustworthiness
* Carefulness
* Experience
* Maturity
* Desire
* Skill

The first five are obviously subjective, and not something that can
really be boiled down to a checklist of requirements or anything.
Indeed, a set of rules could end up overweighting considerations of
skill vs. the other items.

In my own case, I put much higher expectations on myself for packaging
skill level than probably were necessary in hindsight. I really had no
idea what my sponsors or the board would be expecting in terms of skill,
so went way overboard in studying packaging intricacies and esoteric details
(which subsequently has helped me quite a bit in my work, but added a
lot of delay in my process, particularly coupled with the lengthy
application process itself).


For improving the process just for the skill-level consideration, what I
would like to see is sort of a self-directed "exercise workbook", with
sets of packaging, bug triage, testing, documentation, etc. tasks. For
sponsorees with limited skill, this would provide guidance in gaining
it. For sponsorees already with more than adequate skill, this would
help them calibrate their own expectations. For sponsors, knowing that
a candidate has gone through the workbook would help to answer that last
bulletpoint, so they can focus on judging the others.

Bryce

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-07-2009, 11:22 PM
Robert Collins
 
Default Developer Application Criteria - Was New Application processes

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 14:18 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> People like quantitative criteria because they can be applied without
> judgement and with no perception of bias. "Everyone has to wait 6
> months, so
> it's not unfair we say you need to wait too". I really think that
> our
> process is about developers judging the person ready to become a
> developer
> and anything more specific we try to require will end up being
> problematic.

I completely agree. MOTU and core-dev membership is a combination of
* technical knowledge [for which two key points apply: arbitrary
have-done-X metrics don't assess any more reliably than peer assessment
of the work done, and the knowledge ages rapidly as technologies change.
Packaging of python today is not the same as it was 5 years ago].
* trust - which is entirely subjective
* fitting in the team - which can be assessed by who objects

Someone having done a certain number of bug reports or new packages or
merges is not a replacement for peer assessment; if anything it makes
joining MOTU harder because rather than just demonstrating the required
capabilities and personal attributes folk interested in joining would
now have a number of tick-box things to complete, which are neither
necessary nor sufficient for demonstrating that they are ready to become
a MOTU or core dev.

-Rob
--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-07-2009, 11:22 PM
Robert Collins
 
Default Developer Application Criteria - Was New Application processes

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 14:18 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> People like quantitative criteria because they can be applied without
> judgement and with no perception of bias. "Everyone has to wait 6
> months, so
> it's not unfair we say you need to wait too". I really think that
> our
> process is about developers judging the person ready to become a
> developer
> and anything more specific we try to require will end up being
> problematic.

I completely agree. MOTU and core-dev membership is a combination of
* technical knowledge [for which two key points apply: arbitrary
have-done-X metrics don't assess any more reliably than peer assessment
of the work done, and the knowledge ages rapidly as technologies change.
Packaging of python today is not the same as it was 5 years ago].
* trust - which is entirely subjective
* fitting in the team - which can be assessed by who objects

Someone having done a certain number of bug reports or new packages or
merges is not a replacement for peer assessment; if anything it makes
joining MOTU harder because rather than just demonstrating the required
capabilities and personal attributes folk interested in joining would
now have a number of tick-box things to complete, which are neither
necessary nor sufficient for demonstrating that they are ready to become
a MOTU or core dev.

-Rob
--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 01-07-2009, 11:24 PM
Robert Collins
 
Default Developer Application Criteria - Was New Application processes

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 13:46 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>
> For improving the process just for the skill-level consideration, what
> I
> would like to see is sort of a self-directed "exercise workbook", with
> sets of packaging, bug triage, testing, documentation, etc. tasks.
> For
> sponsorees with limited skill, this would provide guidance in gaining
> it. For sponsorees already with more than adequate skill, this would
> help them calibrate their own expectations. For sponsors, knowing
> that
> a candidate has gone through the workbook would help to answer that
> last
> bulletpoint, so they can focus on judging the others.

I think this is a good idea.

-Rob
--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-07-2009, 11:24 PM
Robert Collins
 
Default Developer Application Criteria - Was New Application processes

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 13:46 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>
> For improving the process just for the skill-level consideration, what
> I
> would like to see is sort of a self-directed "exercise workbook", with
> sets of packaging, bug triage, testing, documentation, etc. tasks.
> For
> sponsorees with limited skill, this would provide guidance in gaining
> it. For sponsorees already with more than adequate skill, this would
> help them calibrate their own expectations. For sponsors, knowing
> that
> a candidate has gone through the workbook would help to answer that
> last
> bulletpoint, so they can focus on judging the others.

I think this is a good idea.

-Rob
--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 01-07-2009, 11:34 PM
Nick Ellery
 
Default Developer Application Criteria - Was New Application processes

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 January 2009 13:22, Daniel Holbach wrote:
>> Dustin Kirkland schrieb:
>>> I really believe the MOTU and Core-Dev application processes would
>>> greatly benefit from some minimal, objective criteria. It should be
>>> perfectly clear that meeting these objective criteria will not be
>>> sufficient, alone, to achieve MOTU/Core-Dev. However, I think there
>>> absolutely must be something more objective for an aspiring
>>> MOTU/CoreDev to achieve before taking the time/effort to apply.
>> Please let's have a separate discussion about the criteria, requirements
>> and expectations of new Ubuntu developers. The proposal the MOTU Council
>> put on the table is only about how we deal with applications that come in.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Daniel
>
> OK. Now it's a separate discussion.
>
> I concur with Dustin's observations about some people getting caught up in
> arbitrary requirements. I'd go the other way though. I don't think there is
> any need for X uploads, Y months as a MOTU before applying for core-dev, etc.
> I think applicants should be judged on what they've done, how well they are
> integrated into the community and trusted to do the right thing, and what
> they potential for future contribution is.
>
> I think that the problem is people making up criteria that aren't actually
> rules and then treating them like rules. Using Dustin's case as an example,
> how can we possibly set a fraction of uploads that must be Universe
> packages? "If you have < 30% Universe uploads you may not apply for MOTU and
> must wait until you are ready to apply for core-dev"
>
> People like quantitative criteria because they can be applied without
> judgement and with no perception of bias. "Everyone has to wait 6 months, so
> it's not unfair we say you need to wait too". I really think that our
> process is about developers judging the person ready to become a developer
> and anything more specific we try to require will end up being problematic.
>
> Scott K
>

I currently have an application which has been in progress for about a
month now. Perhaps views from someone like me might help.

I don't believe that there should be any set criteria based on total
uploads, or which archive you upload to. I like what Scott said about
the process is about developers judging if the person is ready.

On the four points made by Daniel, I can agree with all but the fourth
being beneficial. The reason that different Membership Boards were
created was to allow those that are unable to attend CC meetings to
still apply for membership. Doing something like this isn't quite as
reasonable with developer applications, and as such it may become very
difficult for people to make it to the meetings. I am in this position.

Perhaps what could work is that the process is kept to email.
Everything which Daniel suggested can be done here, with links to wiki
pages (where sponsorship feedback could be left) etc. From there, the
meetings can take place, and the MC can decide whether or not to accept
an application there, meaning that the developer who is applying does
not have to be there, but of course could be.

Thanks,
Nick

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-07-2009, 11:34 PM
Nick Ellery
 
Default Developer Application Criteria - Was New Application processes

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 January 2009 13:22, Daniel Holbach wrote:
>> Dustin Kirkland schrieb:
>>> I really believe the MOTU and Core-Dev application processes would
>>> greatly benefit from some minimal, objective criteria. It should be
>>> perfectly clear that meeting these objective criteria will not be
>>> sufficient, alone, to achieve MOTU/Core-Dev. However, I think there
>>> absolutely must be something more objective for an aspiring
>>> MOTU/CoreDev to achieve before taking the time/effort to apply.
>> Please let's have a separate discussion about the criteria, requirements
>> and expectations of new Ubuntu developers. The proposal the MOTU Council
>> put on the table is only about how we deal with applications that come in.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Daniel
>
> OK. Now it's a separate discussion.
>
> I concur with Dustin's observations about some people getting caught up in
> arbitrary requirements. I'd go the other way though. I don't think there is
> any need for X uploads, Y months as a MOTU before applying for core-dev, etc.
> I think applicants should be judged on what they've done, how well they are
> integrated into the community and trusted to do the right thing, and what
> they potential for future contribution is.
>
> I think that the problem is people making up criteria that aren't actually
> rules and then treating them like rules. Using Dustin's case as an example,
> how can we possibly set a fraction of uploads that must be Universe
> packages? "If you have < 30% Universe uploads you may not apply for MOTU and
> must wait until you are ready to apply for core-dev"
>
> People like quantitative criteria because they can be applied without
> judgement and with no perception of bias. "Everyone has to wait 6 months, so
> it's not unfair we say you need to wait too". I really think that our
> process is about developers judging the person ready to become a developer
> and anything more specific we try to require will end up being problematic.
>
> Scott K
>

I currently have an application which has been in progress for about a
month now. Perhaps views from someone like me might help.

I don't believe that there should be any set criteria based on total
uploads, or which archive you upload to. I like what Scott said about
the process is about developers judging if the person is ready.

On the four points made by Daniel, I can agree with all but the fourth
being beneficial. The reason that different Membership Boards were
created was to allow those that are unable to attend CC meetings to
still apply for membership. Doing something like this isn't quite as
reasonable with developer applications, and as such it may become very
difficult for people to make it to the meetings. I am in this position.

Perhaps what could work is that the process is kept to email.
Everything which Daniel suggested can be done here, with links to wiki
pages (where sponsorship feedback could be left) etc. From there, the
meetings can take place, and the MC can decide whether or not to accept
an application there, meaning that the developer who is applying does
not have to be there, but of course could be.

Thanks,
Nick

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 01-07-2009, 11:44 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default Developer Application Criteria - Was New Application processes

On Wednesday 07 January 2009 19:24, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 13:46 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > For improving the process just for the skill-level consideration, what
> > I
> > would like to see is sort of a self-directed "exercise workbook", with
> > sets of packaging, bug triage, testing, documentation, etc. tasks.
> > For
> > sponsorees with limited skill, this would provide guidance in gaining
> > it. For sponsorees already with more than adequate skill, this would
> > help them calibrate their own expectations. For sponsors, knowing
> > that
> > a candidate has gone through the workbook would help to answer that
> > last
> > bulletpoint, so they can focus on judging the others.
>
> I think this is a good idea.

Here's a good list of questions for the workbook:

http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/?rev=0&sc=0

Scott K

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-07-2009, 11:44 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default Developer Application Criteria - Was New Application processes

On Wednesday 07 January 2009 19:24, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 13:46 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > For improving the process just for the skill-level consideration, what
> > I
> > would like to see is sort of a self-directed "exercise workbook", with
> > sets of packaging, bug triage, testing, documentation, etc. tasks.
> > For
> > sponsorees with limited skill, this would provide guidance in gaining
> > it. For sponsorees already with more than adequate skill, this would
> > help them calibrate their own expectations. For sponsors, knowing
> > that
> > a candidate has gone through the workbook would help to answer that
> > last
> > bulletpoint, so they can focus on judging the others.
>
> I think this is a good idea.

Here's a good list of questions for the workbook:

http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/?rev=0&sc=0

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:33 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org