DMB: Proposal for a different review process

Mackenzie Morgan macoafi at
Thu Aug 4 14:12:25 UTC 2011

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Oliver Grawert <ogra at> wrote:
> Am 04.08.2011 15:32 schrieb "Mackenzie Morgan" <macoafi at>:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Oliver Grawert <ogra at> 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 ...
>> See Robbie & Dustin both second-guessing the DMB here in [2]
>> Dustin got upset here [3], when an applicant who said he believed his
>> work to be on a "separate project" [4] did not get accepted.
>> There was also the time Robbie criticized the regional board for
>> saying Kate hadn't been around long enough yet for membership [5]
>> > [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> [4]
>> [5]
> So you identfied robbiew, dustin, jcastro and skaet as people that have a
> differing opinion about contributions than the DMB has, i hope you are aware
> that canonical has nerly 500 employees, why does everyone here seem to think
> that what less than 1% of the company employees say reflects the attitude of
> canonical ?

I'd actually take Kate off that list. In that log, you can see that
she says she only applied at that time because Robbie & Jono said to.
I don't think everybody at Canonical shares that opinion, but the
pattern of "Canonical manager gets angry when his employee is
rejected" is pretty obvious to anyone on any of the boards.  Do I
honestly believe there are some managers at Canonical who think that
the way membership works is:
- Hire someone
- Wait a token number of months
- Get new hire to write an application
- New hire writes a "meh" application
- Get other team members to all write testimonials because quantity
beats quality
- Automatic approval


> did anyone talk to the persons individually? what did you do to sort this
> in an individual manner with the respective person?

To Kate, yes. She didn't go off mid-meeting or rant in-channel.  I
talked to her later about how to improve her application (like
including representing Ubuntu at DebConf).  The others seem to prefer
to air their grievances publicly in-channel.

> or did you just think
> "screw it, these canonical bastards again, sigh" and blame canonical for
> their opinions ?

More like:
Ugh, these two getting upset about the people they manage being
rejected. Again. How predictable! *eye roll*

Mackenzie Morgan

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list