Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thursday, July 21, 2011 01:09:46 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
> On 07/20/2011 04:02 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I think this highlights an issue I see, however. It feels to me like
> there's too much unnecessary "policy" that is bandied about when it
> comes to ubuntu membership at multiple levels. Why does there really
> need to be a different membership board? Would you not be able to
> understand the merits of such an applicant and judge them appropriately?
> 
> For example, say a community member has contributed a bunch of patches
> to Unity code, which is incorporated upstream and not as patches against
> the Ubuntu Unity package. This is technically upstream development, but
> I feel everyone would agree that the contribution is benefiting Ubuntu.
> If this person wants to be an Ubuntu member and participate in Ubuntu
> outside of the Unity realm too, then I feel it is deserved. Does this
> really need a different board to be handled?
> 
> This is why there is a board of people in the first place: to handle
> subjective issues and corner cases that an algorithm cannot deal with.
> 
> I bring this up partly to illustrate the fact that I think the current
> process errs too heavily on the "policy" side at the expense of common
> sense. The approval process works well if you fit the standard mold of
> applicants, but I feel I have been one and heard of other applicants
> that by common sense should be approved but by strict adherence to
> policy have been denied. This is all anecdotal, so I don't want to go
> into details, but I think it is worthwhile to keep in mind whether
> policy changes will really help to encourage and foster new and
> continuing contributions to Ubuntu.

All of that is equally true for any upstream work.  Should all postgresql 
developers be Ubuntu members?  If not, then why Unity developers?

Scott K