Excerpts from Scott Kitterman's message of Thu Jul 21 12:32:39 -0700 2011: > 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.
It shouldn't matter that Unity is sponsored by Canonical. However it should matter that the majority (all?) of the bug reports against Unity come from Ubuntu users, and are responded to by Unity devs. If another distribution picked up Unity, and started funneling bugs back to Unity, I'd be surprised if Ubuntu tasks weren't added by the developers themselves, given that Unity for Ubuntu is their primary focus. Bug work alone should be grounds for Ubuntu membership, even if they end up fixing most of it in upstream versions. Being responsive to the reports helps Ubuntu users, and the Ubuntu project *specifically*. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
