Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing

[Daniel Holbach]

Hello,

On 31.01.2013 15:08, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> While the advisory team can, 
> and should, encourage and support applicants, I think we should be careful to 
> avoid making them an intermediary.

I wasn't trying to say that this should be a mandatory step.

If you go back to my original mail I mentioned that I'd love to see the
process simplified, so adding a meeting or another step in the
application process is not in my interest.


Here are some problems which I currently see:

 - contributor A applies and gets rejected
 - after seeing contributor A fail, contributor B is suddenly
   unsure about applying and feels "well, there's still sponsorship"
 - contributor A might lose interest
 - DMB never hears back from contributor B

These are the social implications of (probably any) application
processes in general, and it's made worse by a public process.


Sure, we're all individuals in the project and individual ties between
people are important, but as an individual you can't always be in touch
with everyone and in a fast-paced project sometimes there's nobody who
reaches out to either A or B and Ubuntu as a project is off worse.

The Advisory Team set out to try to close those social gaps, so if the
DAT reached out to possible applicants, the DMB could have a first look
at applications and/or upload history and mention if they have concerns
or questions, so when contributors apply they have a little bit more
reassurance. This would be an optional step, not a requirement. Having
these communication channels would probably help bringing the DMB and
contributor B in touch and hopefully avoid a case of contributor A.

Let me know what you think.

Have a great day,
 Daniel

-- 
Ubuntu Developer Week - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek
29th-31st Jan 2013 - Your great chance to finally get involved!