Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 05:43:23 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> Recently, I know there's been some omgdrama with the DMB and some
> Canonical teams.  This comes, I believe, from being unsure which
> Canonical projects are Ubuntu sub-projects (like, say, Ubiquity).
> Rick, I believe, described DX as being "upstream" of Ubuntu.  In the
> most recent DMB meeting, an applicant who works on Orchestra said they
> believe Orchestra to be "in parallel development" but not part of
> Ubuntu.  That applicant had uploaded some Orchestra packages, but only
> very recently, so for packaging didn't meet "sustained" while for
> coding would have (7 months), except that the applicant himself didn't
> believe the coding to be a part of Ubuntu.  Again, it's back to "does
> this thing Canonical's doing under a name other than Ubuntu still
> count as part of Ubuntu, or is it just another upstream?"  That's
> where we're getting stuck.  And then I guess you could add "should
> Canonical-sponsored upstream projects be treated differently than
> other upstream projects for purposes of Ubuntu Developer status?"

I think it would be a serious mistake to treat them differently.

Scott K