On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> 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 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
