DMB: Proposal for a different review process

Chase Douglas chase.douglas at
Wed Aug 3 20:06:26 UTC 2011

On 08/03/2011 12:44 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for
>>> evaluating typical applications, and move them to Launchpad. Create a
>>> project (maybe "ubuntu-developer-membership") and then have people open
>>> bugs when they have something to bring up before the board.
>> There seem to be people who are in favor of this and people who are
>> sceptical. That's fine for now, but I think it would be worthwhile to
>> explore this option. This could also be used to supplement rather than
>> replace the current mechanism in cases where timezones don't line up or
>> at the applicants preference.

Sure, all I'm doing is providing an option and following through by
starting a foundation so it can be evaluated. I'm not on the board, and
I realize I don't have a vote in this manner.

> I think it's really up to the DMB to decide how they want to run their 
> application process.  I think you should let them figure it out with our input.  
> There appeared to me to be a very different ratio of liking/not-liking your 
> proposal based on if someone was employed by Canonical or not.  I would 
> suggest that given the current level of pressure on the membership boards by 
> various Canonical people that this would be a particularly good time NOT to be 
> pushing about trying to force a process change on them.

Please, stop assuming input here has anything to do with Canonical. I
can state unequivocally that my input has nothing to do with who I work
for. I am but an Ubuntu developer here. If it helps, I've used my email address to make it even more clear :).

I also do not believe anyone is trying to whitewash things for
Canonical. I want to point out a few things:

1. Many Canonical employees started out as Ubuntu members before they
were employees. I doubt they are now trying to subvert a community they
were and currently are a part of.
2. I have not seen anyone at Canonical apply for membership levels that
did not make sense for that individual. I am unaware of anyone being
granted membership based even in part on their status as a Canonical
3. There are many Canonical employees who do not participate in Ubuntu.
I have not seen any of them try to subvert the Ubuntu community.
4. I have no numbers here, but I believe if you look at the percentage
of top Ubuntu contributors you will find that many also happen to be
Canonical employees. If you filter them out, you may be forsaking
valuable input from a large portion of the community.

Every once in a while there may be a case where an individual Canonical
employee has stepped out of bounds. I feel I can guarantee that it was
not done to harm the Ubuntu project or community, but the end result may
have been just that. Where I have seen that happen, I believe the
parties have taken responsibility and corrected their actions. However,
I see no reason to believe there is a systemic problem.

If you believe there is a problem, please bring it up in whole in a
separate thread. Comments like this do nothing but poison the
conversation. Please judge things on their merits, not on who the
contributor is employed by.

-- Chase

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list