Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Iain Lane]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 03:32:39PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2011 03:05:04 PM Iain Lane wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:40:44AM -0700, 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? [..]
> > > > 
> > > > All of that is equally true for any upstream work.  Should all
> > > > postgresql developers be Ubuntu members?  If not, then why Unity
> > > > developers?
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 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.  

Maybe it's not. All I want to say as part of the DMB is that it's not
for us. If someone wants this kind of membership then the CC is the
appropriate forum to discuss how it should work. Others can then make
their representations.

I should have said "…decide if and how…".

Cheers,

-- 
Iain Lane                                  [ iain at orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer                                   [ laney at debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer                                   [ laney at ubuntu.com ]
PhD student                                       [ ial at cs.nott.ac.uk ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20110721/296b7899/attachment.pgp>