On Thursday, July 21, 2011 01:09:46 PM Chase Douglas wrote: > 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.
All of that is equally true for any upstream work. Should all postgresql developers be Ubuntu members? If not, then why Unity developers? Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
