DMB application announcement requirement #371
Conversation
basak
requested review from
MylesJP,
RAOF,
aaronprisk,
cpaelzer,
didrocks,
enr0n,
ginggs,
joalif,
julian-klode,
mwhudson,
panlinux,
paride,
pushkarnk,
rkratky,
s-makin,
schopin-pro,
seb128,
setharnold,
slyon,
teward,
tjaalton and
utkarsh2102
as code owners
We have a couple of cases of DMB applicants not announcing their applications prior to the application meeting, which causes difficulty in our process since the mailing list archive also currently doubles as our application history archive, and then we cannot easily record the result or find it afterwards. Examining the documentation, it looks like perhaps it might be being implied that the announcement is optional, so adjust the wording to make it clear that it is part of the process. The DMB agreed on Monday that while we might want a different process for archiving applications and their outcomes, we don't have a process yet, so until we conclude the specifics of any replacement, we should keep the existing system so that we don't inadvertently end up with three by only half-doing some change now.
basak
force-pushed
the
dmb-application-announcement-requirement
branch
from
be71aad to
8ea6494
Compare
|
Sorry, the initial commit was bad, based on the wrong parent commit, and didn't include the actual change. I've forced pushed a fix to that now. But I think reviews have now been requested from the wrong people. After the force push it looks like the right people were then requested for review. |
|
@MitchellAugustin, @TheJJ, @kajiya3141, @ottok: FYI. Please announce your application to devel-permissions@ following this documentation so that we can process them properly. I'd also appreciate your insight on how you missed the requirement to announce your application and what we might be able to do to improve the process to save the admin headache when this keeps happening. Thanks! |
Thanks @basak ! Speaking for myself, I think the change of verbiage that you propose here does help since the prior "you can announce" can be interpreted to sound like it is an optional step. I also think it'd be good to include the full email address in this doc page ( One thing that I think could really guarantee that people don't miss it is if some bot account or similar method replies to Discourse DMB application posts with a reminder of this requirement. (I noticed that there seems to be some sort of similar crawling happening with this Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter draft that appears to have crawled my Call for Testing post yesterday, so maybe that's an option here too.) |
|
Thanks @MitchellAugustin. I don't think we have the resources to implement a bot unfortunately, but contributions welcome! @ottok sorry, please disregard - I found that your application email was stuck in moderation and accepted it through. |
Based on feedback from ubuntu#371
|
Hey Robbie! I haven't announced yet since https://documentation.ubuntu.com/project/who-makes-ubuntu/developers/dmb-application/#application-process-overview (right above your patch from this pull) says that you should send the mail after having collected enough endorsements - which I have not yet :) |
Following further discussion, remove the "reserve" step to help ensure that by the time an applicant arrives at an application meeting, the application is actually announced. This has the effect of requiring endorsements before a slot reservation is permitted. However, this shouldn't cause any delay to the process since it'll still be the same number of applicants seeking the same number of slots at once specific stage of the process.
|
@TheJJ thank you! That explains it. I propose to adjust the process then to avoid that hole - see commit. Thanks! |
|
sounds great already! |
3 participants
Description
We have a couple of cases of DMB applicants not announcing their applications prior to the application meeting, which causes difficulty in our process since the mailing list archive also currently doubles as our application history archive, and then we cannot easily record the result or find it afterwards.
Examining the documentation, it looks like perhaps it might be being implied that the announcement is optional, so adjust the wording to make it clear that it is part of the process.
The DMB agreed on Monday that while we might want a different process for archiving applications and their outcomes, we don't have a process yet, so until we conclude the specifics of any replacement, we should keep the existing system so that we don't inadvertently end up with three by only half-doing some change now.
Checklist