Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Iain Lane]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:16:45PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 05:43:23 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > [...] 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.

Indeed. It's not clear to me why we're being expected to assess applicants
whose contributions are (mainly) to upstream projects for Ubuntu membership.
At least in my eyes, we as the DMB exist to consider Ubuntu developer
applications. *This is not to say that upstream development does not count
when considering developer applications, so please don't interpret it as
such.*

If upstream contributions to certain projects are to count as contributions
towards Ubuntu membership status then it should be some other board that
approves these memberships, not the Ubuntu Developer Membership Board. IMHO.

It is for the CC to decide whether contributions to such projects which fall
out of the scope of Ubuntu Development (and thus consideration by the DMB)
should be able to qualify an applicant for membership status, and the
mechanism for doing so.

Cheers,
Iain
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20110721/a4841891/attachment.pgp>