Ubuntu Wiki

Log

TZ UTC -4

[10:59] <dholbach> hi elmo
[11:00] <dholbach> I pinged sabdfl and mako also, although I'm not sure that mako is up already
[11:02] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda is empty afaics
[11:02] <dholbach> is here anybody with other business for the CC meeting?
[11:12] <sabdfl> hello all
[11:12] <dholbach> ah hi sabdfl! :)
[11:12] <sabdfl> sorry for the delay
[11:12] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda is empty and I got no AOB from the people in here
[11:13] <sabdfl> nothing from me
[11:13] <dholbach> elmo: anything from you?
[11:13] <sabdfl> do folks want an update on archivereorg?
[11:13] <james_w> that would be interesting
[11:13] <sabdfl> i think it is quite a big step from a community structure / management / leadership / organisation perspective
[11:14] <sabdfl> yes? no?
[11:15] <james_w> I agree
[11:15] <sabdfl> ok, i'll do a quick summary
[11:15] <sabdfl> the goal is to help scale our developer communit(ies), while at the same time removing unnecessary fragmentation
[11:16] <sabdfl> we hope to achieve the scaling by allowing groups of developers with specific interests to collaborate around sets of packages in ubuntu
[11:16] <sabdfl> for example, xfce folks around the set of packages that represent xfce in ubuntu, or documentation folks around the content packages
[11:17] <sabdfl> access to those groups should be easier for new developers, because they will need to demonstrate a rigorous understanding of a subset of ubuntu, rather than the whole
[11:17] <sabdfl> also, they will be evaluated and approved by the leaders of those specific communities
[11:17] <sabdfl> with some provisions for maintaining a high standard across the board
[11:18] <sabdfl> so, hopefully we have a better match of interests and permissions for more new developers
[11:18] <sabdfl> all developers that have upload to ubuntu will be considered ubuntu developers, and get a vote in the developer community
[11:18] <sabdfl> for example, in the TB elections
[11:19] <sabdfl> separately, we will unify the "generalist developer teams", currently split into -core and -motu
[11:19] <james_w> do you anticipate that we will have an explosion of councils, or that the existing MOTU Council will evaluate applications taking input from those leaders?
[11:19] <sabdfl> so, there will only be one team of generalist developers
[11:19] <sabdfl> some of current motu folks will start out in a focused team, others will start out in the new unified generalist team
[11:19] <sabdfl> we agreed to be conservative in unleashing the new force of potential fragmentation :-)
[11:20] <sabdfl> so, we will probably have 5-10 focus areas initially
[11:20] <sabdfl> gnome, kde, xfce, documentation, mozilla/xul, toolchain, java, etc
[11:20] <sabdfl> there hasn't been a decision-making conversation about that initial set
[11:20] <sabdfl> finally, there will be some portions of the archive where you will need specialised knowledge to have immediate write access
[11:21] <sabdfl> there's no final spec as to which areas they are
[11:21] <sabdfl> but they will not be concentric (i.e. we won't have a simplistic "more trusted, less trusted" approach)
[11:21] <sabdfl> kernel team gets kernel, and so on
[11:22] <sabdfl> we will try to facilitate participation in those areas by others, too
[11:22] <sabdfl> so any ubuntu developer will be able to upload to the kernel
[11:22] <sabdfl> but the upload will need to be reviewed
[11:22] <sabdfl> and there is a commitment to make sure those reviews happen timeously
[11:22] <sabdfl> that's about it
[11:22] <james_w> is that review something that could be extended across the board?
[11:23] <james_w> otherwise we need a good way of asking "can I upload this package directly?"
[11:23] <sabdfl> james_w: well, if someone from the xfce team uploads something that's defined as being part of gnome, or not part of anything, it would get queued for review, yes
[11:23] <sabdfl> in other words, the general meme is "don't reject uploads, either send them to the builds or queue them for review"
[11:23] <james_w> thanks, that's interesting
[11:24] <sabdfl> that describes the layer of "package upload permissions", really
[11:24] <sabdfl> i think w e will see a second layer emerging around access control to the branches that people use for package version control
[11:24] <persia> sabdfl, This mechanism might replace some of the current sponsoring mechanisms more generally?
[11:24] <sabdfl> james_w's work around NoMoreSourcePackages
[11:25]  * dholbach hugs james_w
[11:25] <sabdfl> persia: yes. if you have someone who is an expert in a field, and is doing good work with that set of packages, it should be possible to empower them to upload those packages directly
[11:25] <sabdfl> so, we will have VCS for casual or specialist or upstream participation
[11:25] <sabdfl> and a richer model for sharing the archive between collaborating teams
[11:25] <sabdfl> with a more level playing field for folks who are trusted as generalists
[11:25] <persia> I meant rather for those that weren't.  Currently, we use subscription to special sponsoring teams, but the queued upload solution seems like a better model for those who do not (yet) have upload to a given package.
[11:26] <james_w> I think encouraging non-trivial uploads to be submitted as merge proposals would be sensible, as that is a better interface for review than pulling a package out of the unapproved queue
[11:26] <sabdfl> persia: at this stage, i'd prefer there to be a difference between the queue for review of packages uploaded by people who are already ubuntu developers SOMEWHERE (i.e. -studio or -xubuntu)
[11:26] <persia> sabdfl, That makes sense.  Thank you for the clarification.
[11:26] <sabdfl> vs package reviews for someone who is not
[11:26] <james_w> and avoids clashes where you wish to upload something that is awaiting review
[11:27] <sabdfl> james_w: yes, i don't think our current queue system is up to it, that's where we'll need to do some work
[11:27] <sabdfl> okdokey!
[11:27] <sabdfl> any other questions? or should we wrap?
[11:27] <dholbach> thanks sabdfl
[11:27] <dholbach> nothing from me
[11:27] <sabdfl> thank you dholbach :-)
[11:27] <james_w> we could always make the uploads in the queue available as branches of course
[11:28] <james_w> thank you sabdfl, interesting stuff
[11:28] <james_w> I'm sure there will be plenty more discussion on this topic
[11:29] <dholbach> OK, adjourned :)