On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Iain Lane <la...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > By the way, I am disturbed at the amount of implied criticism the DMB is > receiving in the past couple of weeks. Is it a coincidence that it comes > shortly after we defer some applications (for the first time in a long > while)? I am not just referring to this and the TB email thread, but > also comments that appear on IRC when individuals don't feel an > application is going the way they like.
Perhaps this is a reference to some comments I've made in IRC recently. I admit that I am guilty of dishing out some such criticism. Where I've offended people with said criticism, I offer my humble, sincere apologies and hope to avoid offending individual board members in such ways again. I've already contacted these individuals privately, but I'll again offer my public apology here. Please understand that I am fully appreciative of the fact that all of the various Ubuntu governance councils are unpaid, volunteer work, and I am genuinely thankful for the time and thought that these individuals donate to Ubuntu. I declare that even in the face of decisions that I personally disagree with -- I still thank you for your service to our Community and our Project. I am glad that Jorge started this thread, though, as I have been disappointed with the handling of several applications lately. Not so much the final decision, but the process, which I think is more painful than it needs to be. In particular, I'll echo Jorge's concerns around: - The true value of sponsor endorsements. At this point, I'm becoming more and more reluctant to put time or effort into writing endorsements, as it seems to me that they are summarily dismissed in my experience. This is frustrating as an endorser/sponsor to be told over and over and over again, "Sorry, your endorsement is just wrong -- this person is not suitable for the $privileges they've applied for." I'm failing to understand how my personal standards (as well as those of the other 4 or 5 endorsing CoreDevs/MOTUs/Members) can be *so* far off base from the standards applied by the Board. (Speaking of "standards", see the next bullet...) - The pressing need for some standards for what counts as "enough". I've long been frustrated with the fuzzy, moving targets we have for membership and privileges in Ubuntu, and I think we are long, long overdue for some better published standards. I'm not suggesting tick boxes, but better guidelines for how much/long is enough. This would be a refreshing change to a process that makes me shudder every time I hear a friend or colleague is up for vote :-( I immediately offer condolences to them, as I know the pain they're about to feel, like some college fraternity pledge about to get hazed for silly, traditional reasons. Honestly, I'm so, so, *so* proud of what we accomplish in the project that is Ubuntu, but I'm really quite embarrassed by our membership/privilege according processes. I'm having a harder time encouraging any mature, professional developer in good faith to embark on the roller coaster that is Ubuntu membership or upload privileges. - Mostly, I just wish we were a more inclusive organization by nature, rather than defaulting to being so exclusive -- *especially* for non-uploading Memberships. The inclusiveness of Ubuntu (reflecting back on the definition of the word 'ubuntu') was what drew me to the project originally. I feel that we've slipped away from that in recent times, and I pray we find it again soon. -- :-Dustin Dustin Kirkland Ubuntu Core Developer -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
