DMB: Proposal for a different review process

[Dustin Kirkland]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Oliver Grawert <ogra at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> hi,
>> Am Donnerstag, den 04.08.2011, 10:12 -0400 schrieb Mackenzie Morgan:
>>> More like:
>>> Ugh, these two getting upset about the people they manage being
>>> rejected. Again. How predictable! *eye roll*
>> and what forbids them from being like that ?
>
> As far as I can tell: a rubber stamp.  Someone on Dustin's team
> applied. Better accept them if we want to avoid another fiasco!
...
> Maybe the EMEA region has more folks with a problem with accepting bad
> news, but in over a year on the Americas RMB and 6 months on the DMB,
> I have ***NEVER*** seen ANYONE jump into a meeting to criticise the
> board's decision...except Canonical employees. Period.  It's like the
> upset parent at a kid's baseball game yelling at the umpire because
> the kid struck out.

This getting a little personal and pejorative.  I'll not take offense,
but I would like to defend my name.

I've been visibly disappointed with a DMB in IRC in two meetings in
the past two months.  In neither case, was I challenging the Board's
decision.  Decisions are for the Board itself.  And while I don't
consider such Boards infallible, arguing with Board decisions is not
productive.  And if you read the logs, that's not what I did.

I raised concerns about three distinct parts of the DMB's review
process, all of which have now shown up in the various threads on the
topic.  I have apologized publicly for any perceived personal attacks.
 I should have brought such concerns to the mailing list rather than
the IRC channel during the meeting.  Now, my concerns were:

 1) The lack of a sufficient quorum to render a decision
  * http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/06/20/%23ubuntu-meeting.html

 2) A candidate being challenged as to whether his Ubuntu work was
on-the-job (Canonical) work
  * http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/06/20/%23ubuntu-meeting.html

 3) A candidate's work on a Canonical-sponsored upstream project
(Orchestra, in this case) being discounted as contributions to Ubuntu;
 admittedly the candidate himself fell into a trap question and
clearly stated that Orchestra was not part of Ubuntu (which is
incorrect, btw);  the Board is justified in denying a candidate based
on such a candidate's opinion;  but the general applicability of such
contributions toward Ubuntu membership is an important question
  * http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-meeting.html

To (1), there's been discussion on the list about adjusting meeting
times to improve quorum.  That would be a huge win for everyone.
Woohoo.  \o/

To (2), it seems that there are both Canonical and non-Canonical
employees who believe that Canonical employment should not bias a
decision for or against.  It also seems many people are in agreement
that no such bias exists.  I'm fine with that.  We've had a reasonable
discussion on the topic now.  I'm confident in the Board's ability to
ensure that no such bias exists.  Woohoo.  \o/

To (3), the question of how upstream contributions (e.g. Debian,
Unity, Orchestra, Ensemble) should or shouldn't be considered "Ubuntu
contributions" has been asked, debated, and discussed.  To me, this
one isn't resolved, and I'd like to see an opinion or even a policy
established by an appropriate authority (DMB?  CC?  TB?).  Still, it's
been a healthy discussion.  A very important one.  One that
desperately needed to happen, I'm afraid.  We'll be a better community
because of it.  Woohoo \o/

-- 
:-Dustin

Dustin Kirkland
Ubuntu Core Developer