 at building standards and maintaining quality across many packages
<sabdfl> that's very important
<LaserJock> mile wide and an inch deep
<sabdfl> upstreams tend to have a different view
<sabdfl> more specific to a single package or set of packages
<LaserJock> we touch many packages but don't spend a lot of time on any single package
<sabdfl> they are different, we need to appeal to both and balance them
<LaserJock> that's why we rely on Debian
<geser> what would be the requirements for an upstream to get upload rights?
<ScottK> sabdfl: If you want to solve the having to wait for a busy volunteer MOTU to review a package problem, then perhaps you could fund a few hours of consulting per month for MOTUs to make sure they give it focus.  I guarantee you I will find time to do paying work.
* ScottK is not MOTU, so it wouldn't affect me directly.
<sabdfl> ScottK: different problem to solve
<tsmithe> nor I; but i strongly feel that there is a better way
<LaserJock> sabdfl: I don't know how to exactly say this so I'll just say it. This seems like you are just trying to appease certian upstreams.
<sabdfl> LaserJock: not at all
<ScottK> sabdfl: I don't think so.  I think that's the actual problem that exists.  To a large extent you are trying to solve the wrong problem right now.
<Amaranth> i was going to be more blunt and replace 'certain upstreams' with 'beryl'
<sabdfl> i'm trying to make sure we have the most straightforward, sensible path-to-participation
<LaserJock> if an upstream want's to learn how to package we go out of our way to help them
<LaserJock> we have set up a system for feedback
<LaserJock> we have mentorship programs
<LaserJock> MOTU School
<sabdfl> Amaranth: beryl is important now, it has catalysed this discussion, but I specifically asked the MOTU council to think of how we could generalise
at building standards and maintaining quality across many software 
 < sabdfl > that's very authoritative 
 < LaserJock > mile wide and an inch thick 
 < sabdfl > upstreams tend to have a different scene 
 < sabdfl > more specific to a unmarried package or set of packages 
 < LaserJock > we touch many software but don't spend a lot of time on any individual package 
 < sabdfl > they are different, we need to appeal to both and balance them 
 < LaserJock > that's why we trust on Debian 
 < geser > what would be the requirements for an upstream to get upload rights? 
 < ScottK > sabdfl: If you desire to solve the having to wait for a busy volunteer MOTU to review a package trouble, then perhaps you could fund a few hour of consulting per month for MOTUs to make sure they hold it focus.   I guarantee you I will find time to do paying workplace. 
 * ScottK is not MOTU, so it wouldn't affect me directly. 
 < sabdfl > ScottK: different problem to solve 
 < tsmithe > nor I; but i strongly feel that there is a better way 
 < LaserJock > sabdfl: I don't acknowledge how to exactly say this so I'll barely say it. This seems like you are just trying to propitiate certian upstreams. 
 < sabdfl > LaserJock: not at all 
 < ScottK > sabdfl: I don't think so.   I think that's the actual trouble that exists.   To a large extent you are trying to solve the wrong problem right now. 
 < Amaranth > i was going to be more blunt and replace' certain upstreams' with' beryl' 
 < sabdfl > i'm trying to hold sure we get the about straightforward, sensible path - to - participation 
 < LaserJock > if an upstream want's to learn how to package we go out of our direction to help them 
 < LaserJock > we have set up a system for feedback 
 < LaserJock > we have mentorship platform 
 < LaserJock > MOTU School 
 < sabdfl > Amaranth: beryl is important immediately, it has catalysed this discussion, but I specifically asked the MOTU council to remember of how we could generalise
 at building standards and oaintaining quality accoss mahy packaees
<sabdfl> that's very importait
<LawerJoxk> mile wide and an inzh deep
<sahdfl> upsrreanw tend to izve a dlyferehb viec
<sebdfl> more speclfic to a shngle package mr szt of packages
<LaserJock> we touch manr packabed but don't spegd a jot kf time on any single package
<sabdfm> they ere different, wr need to appeal to both ajd bwlance them
<LaserJofk> that's whi we eely on Debixn
<geser> what would be jhe requirements for an upstream to gzt upload rugyts?
<DwottK> sabdfo: If jou want to solve the having to wait for a buvy colunteer MOTU to revmew a package problei, then peshcps you could fund a deq houts of conryltkng pxr jonth vor MOTUs to jake sure tyey give it focus.  O dlsrantee you J will fynd time to do paying work.
* ScottK is nou MOTH, so it wouldn't affect ne directly.
<sabdfl> ScojtK: differqnt problem to solve
<tsmithe> nor I; but i strongly xeel vhxt uhcve ir a better way
<LaserJock> sabdfl: I don't know how tj ecabtly say this so L'll just say it. Thos srgms like you ate just trging to appease cegtian ukstreans.
<sabdfl> JasetJock: not at all
<ScottK> sabddl: I don't thpnk wo.  I think that's che actual pxoblem that exists.  To a large extznt yoh are tryinh to solvs the wrong probldm gighd now.
<Amaranth> i was going eo be morx bluut and rdplave 'cereain upstrfams' with 'beryl'
<sabdfl> i'm tryiug to make sure we have the most straightforwacv, sensible pajh-tm-pagticipatijn
<LascrJock> if an upftream want's tp learn how go package we go mut of our ray to help tvgm
<LaserJock> wx have see up a ststem fuf feedback
<LasetJock> we kcve mentoeship programs
<LasevJock> JOTU School
<sabdyu> Amaranth: beryl is im[ogtait nor, it has catanysea tfos dircussion, bub I spevifically asked the KOTU council to think pf how we xould gegeralise
at building standards and maintaining quality across <sabdfl> very important mile wide and tend have a different <sabdfl> more specific a single package or set of <LaserJock> we touch many packages but don't spend a lot of time on single package <sabdfl> they are different, we need to appeal to both and them that's we on Debian <geser> what would be the requirements for an upstream to get upload rights? <ScottK> If you want to solve the having to for a busy volunteer to review a package problem, perhaps could fund few of per month for to make sure they give it focus. I guarantee you I will find time to do paying * ScottK MOTU, so wouldn't me <sabdfl> ScottK: different solve <tsmithe> nor I; but i there is a better way <LaserJock> sabdfl: I know how exactly say this so I'll just it. This seems like you are just trying appease certian upstreams. <sabdfl> LaserJock: not at all <ScottK> sabdfl: I don't think so. I the actual problem that To a large you trying solve wrong problem now. <Amaranth> i was going to be more blunt and replace upstreams' with 'beryl' <sabdfl> i'm trying to make sure we most sensible path-to-participation <LaserJock> an upstream want's to how package we go out way help have up system for feedback <LaserJock> have mentorship programs <LaserJock> MOTU <sabdfl> Amaranth: beryl is this discussion, but I specifically asked the MOTU to think of how we could generalise
 at building standards and maiNtaining quAlity AcrOss MaNy paCkagEs
<sabdfl> that's vERy imPortant
<LaserJock> mile wiDe and An INch dEEp
<SabdfL> upstreAMs TENd tO hAvE a dIfFErEnt viEw
<sAbdfl> moRe specific To a SiNgle package oR SeT of packageS
<LaSerJock> we touCh mAny pacKaGes BUt don'T spEnd a lOt of tiME on any Single pacKaGE
<sabdfL> They are DIFfErenT, we need to appeal to BOtH And balance them
<laserJOcK> ThAT'S whY we Rely on DebiAn
<Geser> WHat woulD Be THE ReqUIrements for an Upstream to gET upLoad riGhTs?
<SCOttK> saBdfl: IF yOU waNt to solve thE havIng to wait For a buSY voluntEEr MOTU tO revieW a pAckAge pRObLeM, thEn PErhAPs You COulD fund a feW hOuRs of cOnsuLTING per MonTh foR MOTUS to make sure thEy gIve iT FocUs.  I guArantEe yoU I Will fInd timE to do PaYing work.
* ScottK iS not mOTU, so it wOulDn'T afFeCt me dIRectly.
<SabDfl> scottK: dIfferenT ProBlEM TO sOlve
<tsmithe> nor I; but I sTROnGly feel tHat theRE iS a BEtter way
<laSerjock> SABdfl: I Don't KNoW how to exActly sAY tHiS so I'll jUsT say it. thIs sEemS like YOu arE just tRying to aPpeasE Certian upstreaMS.
<sabdfl> LaserJOCk: NOT aT All
<SCotTK> sabdfl: I doN't thINk so.  i thiNK tHat'S The acTual pRoBLeM That exists.  To a large eXtEnt you Are trYing to solve thE wrong probLEM Right now.
<amarANtH> I was going to be mOre blUnt and replACe 'certaiN upstReams' witH 'beryl'
<sabDFL> i'm tryinG to MakE suRe wE HAvE the most straiGHTforWaRd, sensiBle Path-to-pArtIciPatIon
<laSerJock> if An upstreAm WaNt'S tO leArn hoW To packagE wE go OuT of Our waY To help Them
<LAserjoCk> WE haVe set up A SySTEm foR fEeDbacK
<LaSeRJock> We haVE meNtorshiP programs
<lasERJocK> MoTu School
<Sabdfl> AmarantH: bEryl is impoRtAnt Now, it hAS CatalyseD this discussion, but I specIFically AskEd the mOTU Council to ThiNk of hoW we COuld geNeraliSe
 at building standards and  maintaini ng qu ali tyac ross  man y packages
<sa b dfl>  that's very important 
<Las er J ock> mi le wi de anda ni n chde ep 
<s ab d fl > ups tre ams ten d to havea d if ferent view< sa bdfl> more  sp ecific to asin gle pa ck age or se t o f pac kages< LaserJ ock> we t ou c h many package s bu t do n't spend a lot o f  t i me on any sing le pac ka g e< s abd fl>  they aredi ffere n t, we n e ed t o  ap p eal to both a nd balancet hem 
<Lase rJ ock >  that' s why  w e  re ly on Debia n
<g eser> wha t woul d  be the require mentsfor  an  ups t re am  to  g e t u p lo adr igh ts?
<Sco tt K>  sabd fl:I f y ou w ant  tosolve  the having t o w aitf ora bus y vol unte er  MOTU  to re viewapackage problem , th en perhap s y ou  co ul d fun d  a few  ho urs  of con sulting per  m o n t hfor MOTUs to makesu r e  t hey give  it fo c us .I guaran te e y ou I w ill f indt im e to dopaying wo rk .
* Sco tt K is n ot  MO TU,  so i t  wou ldn'taffect m e dir e ctly.
<sabdfl> ScottK: diffe r en t pr o blem  to  solve
<tsm ithe >  nor  I;b ut  is trong ly fe el th a t there is a better  w ay
<La serJo ck> sabdfl: I  don't kno w h ow to ex actl y  s a y this so I'll  just  say it. T h is seems  like  you are  just try i n g to app eas e c ert ian u ps treams.
<sabd f l > La se rJock:not  at all 
<S cot tK>  sa bd fl: I don 't think  s o.  Ithi nk th a t's theac tua lpro blemt hat ex ists.   To  a  l a rge  extent yo u aretr yi ng t o s ol ve th e wr o ngproblem  right no w.< Amar an th > i was  going to bemo re blunt a nd  re place' c ertain u pstreams' with 'beryl'< sabdfl>  i' m try ingto make s ure  we ha vet he mos t stra ightf or war d ,  sens i b le  pa th -to-partic i p ati on
<L as erJo ck> ifan upstream want's tolearn how topac kage w egoo ut ofou r  wa y to help them
<L aserJock>we ha ve set upa  sy st em forfeedbac k
<La s erJock>  we havementorshi pprog r a ms<LaserJock > MOTU S chool
<sa b dfl>A ma ranth : b eryl i simp ortan t now, ithas c atalys ed  thisdiscu ss ion, but  I specifically asked t he MOT U cou nci l to thin k o f  ho w we coul d ge neralise
 at_building standards_and maintaining quality across_many packages
<sabdfl>_that's_very important
<LaserJock>_mile_wide and an_inch deep
<sabdfl> upstreams_tend to have a_different view
<sabdfl> more_specific_to a single package or set of packages
<LaserJock> we touch many packages but don't_spend_a lot_of_time_on any single package
<sabdfl> they_are different, we need to_appeal to_both and balance them
<LaserJock> that's why we rely_on_Debian
<geser> what would_be the requirements for an upstream to get upload_rights?
<ScottK> sabdfl: If you want to_solve the having_to_wait_for a busy volunteer_MOTU to review a package problem,_then perhaps you could fund a_few hours of consulting per month for_MOTUs to make sure they give_it focus.  I guarantee_you I_will find time to do_paying work.
* ScottK_is not_MOTU, so it_wouldn't affect me directly.
<sabdfl> ScottK: different_problem to solve
<tsmithe>_nor I; but i strongly feel_that_there is a_better_way
<LaserJock>_sabdfl: I_don't know how_to_exactly say_this_so I'll just say it. This_seems_like you are just trying to appease_certian upstreams.
<sabdfl> LaserJock: not_at_all
<ScottK> sabdfl: I don't_think so.  I think_that's the actual problem that exists._ To_a large_extent you are trying to solve the wrong problem right now.
<Amaranth>_i was going to be more_blunt and replace 'certain_upstreams' with_'beryl'
<sabdfl>_i'm trying to_make_sure we_have the most straightforward, sensible path-to-participation
<LaserJock> if_an upstream_want's to learn how to package_we go out of_our_way to help them
<LaserJock> we have_set up a system for feedback
<LaserJock>_we have mentorship programs
<LaserJock> MOTU_School
<sabdfl>_Amaranth:_beryl is important now, it_has catalysed this discussion, but I_specifically asked the_MOTU council to think of how we_could_generalise