Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Chase Douglas]

On 07/21/2011 03:52 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:11:16PM -0400, Jorge O. Castro wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I am confused as to the definition of the different levels of Ubuntu
>> Developers and how that relates to membership in each of the various
>> teams (though probably involves overall project membership as well). I
>> thought I would bring this up for discussion as it seems to be getting
>> more confusing and I'm having a hard time understanding what the level
>> of expectations for someone applying for Ubuntu membership for a given
>> role is, as well as to what the expected behavior is for endorsements
>> from existing members.
>>
>> According to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers an "Ubuntu
>> Prospective Developer" is someone "who probably just started
>> contributing to Ubuntu". The description on the wiki page doesn't list
>> anything critical there; the person still needs a sponsor to upload,
>> etc. From what I can read it's basically the same as Ubuntu Membership
>> but you're interested in eventually going down the development path
>> and you have a mentor/sponsor. Ok, that sounds good to me. This feels
>> like a position that should be relatively low barrier.
> 
> I didn't write that page, and I don't know who did. If it's confusing
> then please go ahead and fix it.
> 
> Prospective developer isn't a position. It's just what you are when you
> start being interested in Ubuntu Development. I found this definition on
> Google
> 
>   Likely to happen at a future date; concerned with or applying to the
>   future
> 
> By the way, I am disturbed at the amount of implied criticism the DMB is
> receiving in the past couple of weeks. Is it a coincidence that it comes
> shortly after we defer some applications (for the first time in a long
> while)? I am not just referring to this and the TB email thread, but
> also comments that appear on IRC when individuals don't feel an
> application is going the way they like.

For me, it has nothing to do with anything recent. My case is likely an
outlier, but the immediate problem I have is two-fold:

1. I've been lazy and haven't found time to provide feedback and try to
resolve my issues.

2. I don't really know of any way to provide feedback about the process.
I have talked to people outside the process and explained my situation,
and most of them scratch their head and agree that, at least how I
explained it, the outcome of my ordeal did not seem best.

I believe the criteria for acceptance of an applicant at some levels
does not match the role. If this is the appropriate forum to discuss
such issues, I'd be happy to elaborate. If I could be pointed to a more
appropriate place, that would be appreciated as well.

> I just found two quotes on [0] that both applicants and endorsers should
> be aware of.
> 
>   While contributions to those projects are appreciated and worth being
>   recognised, involvement in Ubuntu is required. After all it's all
>   about Ubuntu membership.
> 
> and
> 
>   We look for sustained and significant contributions. While there is no
>   precise period that we look for, it is rare for applications to be
>   accepted from people contributing for less than 6 months.
> 
> The DMB also applies these tests when granting membership. Please be
> mindful of these when you (even implicitly and without naming specific
> occasions, which invariably is what happens) criticise our actions.

My assumption was that since upstream contributions for Ubuntu
membership was brought up, then it was something that was likely to
happen. Apparently that's not the case :).

Thanks,

-- Chase