DMB: Proposal for a different review process

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thursday, August 04, 2011 06:01:01 AM Oliver Grawert wrote:
> 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

That is just one issue of many.  As another one, I'll give you [2] where an 
Canonical employee's boss ranted at the RMB for not approving an application.

Your characterization of what I said is pretty much the opposite of what I 
meant.  In a different reply in this thread I said:

"I don't think bias is the right word.  I think there is a tendency to have a 
different perspective.  I don't think anyone is being evil or disingenuous.  I 
think that different perspective causes us to have different views of what the 
project is and thus what is an appropriate criteria for membership, etc, much 
of the recent discussion."

There has been a lot of discussion about people wanting work on Canonical 
projects other than Ubuntu to count as Ubuntu contributions.  I don't know how 
to consider that as anything other than wanting special treatment.  Should we 
grant Ubuntu membership to every DD because their work supports Ubuntu 
directly and is critical to it's success?  We don't.  Why should Canonical 
projects be different?

As I said in the other mail, I don't think there is some grand design or 
conspiracy going on.  I think that there is a genuine difference of perspective 
and it's causing friction.  I'm more willing to speak publically on the matter 
than others, but the perception I am trying to communicate is broadly shared 
(check the logs of #ubuntu-motu yesterday for some of the non-email feedback 
that was at least public).

There are a lot of people at Canonical that don't suffer from this disconnect 
and you are one of them.  Please don't take a generalization as meaning I 
think it applies to everyone.  I don't.  Even in the message you are replying 
to I talked about ratios of support being different not that everyone at 
Canonical had the same opinion.

The matter of whether non-Ubuntu work counts as a contribution to Ubuntu has 
been referred to the CC.  They will decide the issue and it'll get clarified.  
I hope they consider all the implications of their choices and decide well, 
but once it's decided by them, then we'll know the right answer and can move 
on.

Finally, show me a case where managers at any of those other companies have 
felt they could come and yell at a membership board about their decisions and 
I'll be glad to put them in the same group as Canonical.

I will say again: I don't think anyone is being evil or there is any grand 
conspiracy.  I don't think, in general, the relationship between Canonical and 
non-Canonicla members of the Ubuntu community is as good as it should be right 
now.  I would like for it to be better.  It would be nice if employment status 
at Canonical were a less reliable predictor for how someone would look at an 
issue (the one that started this thread being an example where it's a good, 
but not 100% indicator).

Scott K


[2] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/12/17/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t04:21