SRU discussion... Again
Emmet Hikory (persia) started a discussion about the criteria for approval of SRU nominations. Points were raised as to whether the approver should sponsor the SRU, with a consensus that it would be nice of them to do so, but they don't have to. The resolution was the following: "Nominations should be approved if a developer believes that the issue meets, or may meet, the criteria for an SRU." Those who put forward nominations, should also ask on IRC in #ubuntu-motu, and or on the mailing list, for approval.
Although never on the agenda, the usefulness of the Q&A sessions is a constant discussion point at meetings, no less for this one. Points were raised as to whether people putting up new packages on REVU are making use of these sessions, and are even caring enough to read the documentation on the wiki. There were also calls for abolishing the sessons entirely, with the decision that this should happen only if its put on the agenda for a future meeting.
With REVU being partially raised during the Q&A sessions discussion, the discussion moved to REVU in more detail. As previously stated, many packages are being uploaded, and many requests for review are being made, but the packages, besides sometimes containing a few patches, are often wrong in very obvious ways. A query on whether the documentation "isnt clear enough, doesnt exist, there arent enough examples, or people arent reading and understanding them."(Sarah Hobbs (Hobbsee)) Packages have also been noted to sit on REVU, and either don't get reviewed at all, or aren't updated for months. Scott Kitterman (ScottK) spent some time last week going through packages that haven't received updates since May, asking if the package uploaders are still interested in getting their packages in. "If no one responds by next week (two weeks to respond) I'm going to archive." (ScottK)
Persia and Luke Yelavich (TheMuso) also brought up an experiment that they attempted, along with a package on REVU, and its uploader, yet were unsure whether it worked yet. The experiment entailed fixing any packaging errors, both for the Ubuntu packaging itself, as well as the upstream Makefile. The biggest issue that was raised, was how to manage revisions, whether the original uploader actually learnt anything, and the fact that those issues fixed by TheMuso and Persia weren't clearly stated as their fixes. As it was, the package was accepted into the archive.
MOTU drive in the works
Hobbsee stated that there were plans in the works for a big MOTU drive. "How can the current MOTU team become more effective in reviews, and making sure that things from new contributors are good enough to be *worth* reviewing." (Hobbsee) She requested all meeting attendees to have a thhink about it, and put any ideas forward at the next MOTU meeting.
UVF Team poll reminder
A reminder for all MOTUs to vote in the UVF team poll, as posted to the list by Daniel Holbach.
Next meeting, and REVU times
The next MOTU meeting will be on 10 August, at 04:00 UTC. REVU days were deemed to be every Monday, as that is easy for everybody to remember, and ensures that REVU gets more attension.