Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Jorge O. Castro]

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.

Here is an example from the last DMB meeting minutes: "The current
consensus is that although this contributions can be used to satisfy
certain tests applied by the board to determine level of skill, it is
not clear if it is appropriate to use it to satisfy the test of
sustained and significant *development* contribution to Ubuntu
(especially versus the less specific test of sustained and significant
contribution to Ubuntu applied by the Regional Membership Boards). In
previous applications to the DMB and Regional Membership Boards,
significant contributions to upstream projects exclusively but not to
Ubuntu specifically have not been deemed satisfactory."

Ok so that seems to make sense to me too. It is my understanding that
"significant and sustained" has usually meant "about 6 months", except
in cases where it doesn't. However some applicants for membership have
had endorsement from existing members where they do feel that that
person has had significant and sustained contributions and have had
their applications for membership declined. So my questions are:

 - How important are endorsements from existing members to the
membership boards and how much are they taken into account when
reviewing an applicant?
 - And if they're not important than why do we have them? Why not just
have a list of things you need to get membership for each step?
 - When endorsing people do we have a hard rule about 6 months of contributions?

I am asking these because I am becoming unsure when I should be
endorsing a candidate for membership. Thanks!