Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thursday, July 21, 2011 02:40:44 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> If I were on the board, I would review an upstream-only application by
> looking for:
> 
> * Upstream contributions whose goal was to make the software work better
> on Ubuntu (not necessarily exclusively on Ubuntu, but if Ubuntu was the
> personal impetus for the developer it would qualify)
> * An interest in becoming more involved in Ubuntu development
> * Endorsements specifically by current Ubuntu members that the
> applicants work is improving the quality of Ubuntu
> 
> The point is that I believe there are cases where it makes sense to
> bestow Ubuntu membership on upstream-only individuals. When we create
> and enforce policy, we need to keep in mind that we may be forsaking
> valid corner-cases. Imo, A policy that says the DMB cannot grant
> membership to an upstream-only contributor is too restrictive. If
> anything, we should be as open as possible at the membership level.
> Spread the love!

I'd suggest it slightly differently.

There are multiple boards that can grant Ubuntu membership (another example is 
Kubuntu Council can grant Ubuntu membership based on Kubuntu focused 
contributions).  The DMB's role in Ubuntu membership (it does other stuff too) 
is to grant membership based on work in development of Ubuntu.  While upstream 
work may be development ON Ubuntu (and in some cases even FOR Ubuntu), it is 
not development OF Ubuntu.

As a practical matter it is quite common for people working on the types of 
upstream development that you suggest should qualify to have little or no 
understanding of how Ubuntu as a project works, it's values, or it's goals. 
These things are orthogonal to the work they are doing.

If there is someone who is doing upstream work that's tied to Ubuntu somehow, 
they are integrated into the Ubuntu project and working as part of it then 
that upstream work related to Ubuntu ought to be one factor that's considered, 
but it is unlikely to be sufficient on it's own and it is outside the scope of 
the role in granting membership that I understand the DMB has.  That doesn't 
mean that someone in this situation can't apply to one of the general 
membership boards, but I don't think they fit with the specifics of what the DMB 
was designed to do.

So I agree that there are cases where upstream work that is connected to 
Ubuntu can count towards significant and sustained contribution to Ubuntu, but 
I really don't agree that this non-Ubuntu development work should be sent to 
the DMB for consideration.

Scott K