Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Chase Douglas
<chase.douglas at canonical.com> wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> All of that is equally true for any upstream work.  Should all postgresql
>> developers be Ubuntu members?  If not, then why Unity developers?
>
> I believe all upstream developers of software that is meaningful to
> Ubuntu (this is subjective) who also apply for membership and go through
> the process should be acceptable for Ubuntu membership. If you have gone
> through the process you are showing that you are interested in
> contributing to Ubuntu. There's no short-cut here, you still have to
> prepare an application, receive endorsements, and be reviewed by the
> board. But I feel upstream contributions should be enough under certain
> circumstances to warrant membership.

For regular membership or developer membership? Neither is for "I'm
interested in contributing."  Both are for "I'm already contributing
to Ubuntu."  For regular membership, we tend to expect some level of
involvement with a LoCo team or mailing list or IRC or other form of
tech support, maybe writing documentation, translating, etc.

-- 
Mackenzie Morgan