Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> I agree, but since the upstreams that have been mentioned are all Canonical
> sponsored projects almost exclusively developed by Canonical employees the net
> effect of treating such upstream projects specially as "Ubuntu development"
> would be to change this.  I think it would be a serious mistake.
>
> I get the sense that some people are not happy with the way the DMB is working
> (e.g. a recent proposal was sent to the tech board that would have effectively
> emasculated the BMD and turned it into a rubber stamp body).  If people don't
> like what the DMB is doing, then the solution is to try to get on the DMB and
> do a better job.

As a data point to the discussion about Canonical employees'
applications to the DMB, please see
http://people.ubuntu.com/~maco.m/dmb_record_keeping.html

The current DMB has accepted 20 and deferred 3 applications since we
took over from the old DMB on 28 February. Of those 20 accepted
applications, 80% are from Canonical employees. Glancing at the list,
I expected to see about half the names being from Canonical, but after
reviewing Launchpad and wiki pages, I was pretty shocked to see how
few applications we've received from volunteer developers.

Yes, I know, Canonical employees should be aubergine instead of
orange. I didn't think aubergine was sufficiently distinguishable from
black, so you're getting Halloween instead.

-- 
Mackenzie Morgan