Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes

[Chase Douglas]

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?

For example, say a community member has contributed a bunch of patches
to Unity code, which is incorporated upstream and not as patches against
the Ubuntu Unity package. This is technically upstream development, but
I feel everyone would agree that the contribution is benefiting Ubuntu.
If this person wants to be an Ubuntu member and participate in Ubuntu
outside of the Unity realm too, then I feel it is deserved. Does this
really need a different board to be handled?

This is why there is a board of people in the first place: to handle
subjective issues and corner cases that an algorithm cannot deal with.

I bring this up partly to illustrate the fact that I think the current
process errs too heavily on the "policy" side at the expense of common
sense. The approval process works well if you fit the standard mold of
applicants, but I feel I have been one and heard of other applicants
that by common sense should be approved but by strict adherence to
policy have been denied. This is all anecdotal, so I don't want to go
into details, but I think it is worthwhile to keep in mind whether
policy changes will really help to encourage and foster new and
continuing contributions to Ubuntu.

-- Chase