Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Chase Douglas]

On 07/21/2011 12:05 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:40:44AM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
>> 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 didn't say that these people shouldn't be given membership. I said
> that the DMB isn't the right board to do this. We're don't grant
> membership to everyone who makes technical contributions. We grant
> membership (and upload access) to people interested in doing Ubuntu
> Development. This isn't excessive bureaucracy. It's a board not
> overstepping its bounds and, frankly, its competence.

I understand that the DMB wasn't set up to deal with this specific case.
However, if every board says "this isn't my realm", then we have a
problem. There should be a board that is capable of handling
non-standard applications. Maybe that isn't the DMB.

The reason I thought it should be the DMB is because it is the most
centralized membership board, in terms of geography and understanding of
Ubuntu development, that I am aware of.

> As I said before, there's currently no way for people who are only
> upstream contributors to get membership. The CC needs to decide how this
> should work, and how the membership applications are to be handled.

Perhaps it would be better to just define one board to handle "other"
applicants.

-- Chase