Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Greg Grossmeier]

<quote name="Mackenzie Morgan" date="2011-07-21" time="14:48:05 -0400">
> 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."  

This is a very important point to make. Thanks Mackenzie.

If you contribute to postgresql and are interested in contributing to 
Ubuntu, your first step should not be to apply for Ubuntu Membership. 
You should instead start contributing to Ubuntu, talk with people who do 
similar things to what you want to do (packaging, support, whatever) and 
do it. When you have then been contributing *to Ubuntu* for a while, 
*then* you should apply for *Ubuntu* membership.

Sorry for all of the astericks there. It just seems to water down the 
meaning of Ubuntu membership if we give it to every upstream that is 
included in Ubuntu -main/restricted/universe/multiverse repos.

Greg

-- 
|       Greg Grossmeier |
| http://grossmeier.net |