DMB: Proposal for a different review process

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 03.08.2011, 17:05 -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> 
> Much of this entire discussion was started by Canonical employees wanting 
> special case treatment for upstream work sponsored by Canonical. 
this is totally untrue if i read the log [1] from the meeting that
caused you to start this rant against canonical ... 

... seriously, if you say something in an ubuntu meeting, how often have
you been blamed to speak for your company ... ?

if i read this meeting log, i see that one LP developer (henninge)
applied for membership and was turned down for not having documented
enough stuff on his wikipage ...

...he then expressed *surprise* that his LP contribution isnt supposed
to count at all (according to iulians words), apparently two other
people that read the meeting too expressed the same surprise (i would
have too) ...

sorry, but nowhere in the meeting log i see a line where anyone asks for
special treatment, i dont even see any rant, heat or argument, just
three people expressing their surprise (each with exactly one line)
about iulians attitude that LP contributions dont count at all.

now it happens that all these three persons are canonical employees ...
does that mean they speak for canonical ? 
do you really blame dell for everything superm1 says on irc, should i
blame your company for everything you say ... ?

>  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.  

no, it was an individual that happens to be employed by canonical and
there was surely no order from his/her manager to do that ...

> 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.
putting oil on the fire and accusing individual statements to be orders
by the employer wont really help to solve it either ...

>   I think it is broad and systematic.  I don't believe it's intentional.  
> I do believe it's a problem.

i do belive it is a problem that you assume canonical behind everything
a canonical employee says. thats not the case ! 
even if a manager twitters out of frustration that a friend and team
member of him didnt get approval, THIS IS NOT a statement from
canonical ...

there is no "pressure" canonical applies here to anything nor is there a
secret cabal to take over the community ...

as an ubuntu member i must say i feel pretty offended by that attitude
that gets spread by mail threads like this one that obviously have no
foundation. it makes my words as ubuntu member invaluable since
according to your theory all i say is put in my mouth by my employer
anyway ... please stop that, it makes this community an unpleasant
place 

lets identify the issues *with the individuals* and fix them and stop
seeing a conspiratory masterplan behind everything ...

ciao
	oli


[1] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/08/02/%23ubuntu-meeting.txt