Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Chase Douglas]

On 07/21/2011 12:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I disagree that a pure upstream membership path is appropriate.  It's been a 
> long held project value that "Because you work for Canonical" doesn't get you 
> special treatment in the project (either better or worse).  Treating Canonical 
> sponsored upstream projects as anything other than the upstream projects they 
> are would change that in a way I don't think we want.  
> 
> I do agree that there are times when upstream work can be A factor in 
> membership, but unless people are actively involved in Ubuntu, they shouldn't 
> be members.  I know that will result in some Canonical people feeling like 
> they are left out.  If so, they should do like the rest of us do who aren't 
> paid to work on Ubuntu and just contribute.

I only want to address one small part of this. The reply seems to focus
quite a bit on Canonical developers and contributions. I do not make any
distinction, for or against, between a Canonical owned/developed and a
third-party owned/developed contribution. Because I eluded to personal
anecdotes earlier in the thread, I want to make clear that none of them
were based around whether any individual was a Canonical employee or not.

I have not personally seen any bias for or against Canonical in the
membership process. I believe membership is being granted on an
egalitarian basis.

-- Chase