On 07/21/2011 12:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I disagree that a pure upstream membership path is appropriate. It's been a > long held project value that "Because you work for Canonical" doesn't get you > special treatment in the project (either better or worse). Treating > Canonical > sponsored upstream projects as anything other than the upstream projects they > are would change that in a way I don't think we want. > > I do agree that there are times when upstream work can be A factor in > membership, but unless people are actively involved in Ubuntu, they shouldn't > be members. I know that will result in some Canonical people feeling like > they are left out. If so, they should do like the rest of us do who aren't > paid to work on Ubuntu and just contribute.
I only want to address one small part of this. The reply seems to focus quite a bit on Canonical developers and contributions. I do not make any distinction, for or against, between a Canonical owned/developed and a third-party owned/developed contribution. Because I eluded to personal anecdotes earlier in the thread, I want to make clear that none of them were based around whether any individual was a Canonical employee or not. I have not personally seen any bias for or against Canonical in the membership process. I believe membership is being granted on an egalitarian basis. -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel