DMB: Proposal for a different review process

[Chase Douglas]

On 08/03/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 04:06:26 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
>> 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:
>>> 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
>> @ubuntu.com 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
>> employee.
>> 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.
> 
> Much of this entire discussion was started by Canonical employees wanting 
> special case treatment for upstream work sponsored by Canonical.  It was a 
> Canonical employee that proposed to the Tech Board, without even consulting 
> with the DMB first, to change how the DMB could assess applications and 
> restrict their ability to deny applications.  Multiple members of multiple 
> boards have complained they feel like they are subject to harrassment from 
> Canonical managers if they don't approve a Canonical applicant.  The 
> agree/disagree ratio on your proposed change in how to change the application 
> process was roughly reversed depending on if someone was employed by Canonical 
> or not.
> 
> I think there is a serious split between the Canonical and non-Canonical parts 
> of the community right now and trying to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't 
> help.  I think it is broad and systematic.  I don't believe it's intentional.  
> I do believe it's a problem.

If that's the case, then I am unaware of it. I will take your word for
it, and would tend to agree with you if what you have stated is full and
accurate. I apologize for any unbeknownst mistakes in my
characterization of the relationship between Canonical and Ubuntu.

However, please understand that I have nothing to do with any of that
(other than ancillarily dragging myself into the upstream contributions
discussion without knowing anything of it). Everything I read here on
ubuntu-devel from Canonical employees appears to be unbiased to me. If
you see bias, please feel free to call it out, but I haven't seen
anything. However, do not assume that the intentions of everyone who
works at Canonical are biased, and please evaluate input on the merits
of the input alone.

-- Chase