On 08/03/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 04:06:26 PM Chase Douglas wrote: >> On 08/03/2011 12:44 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote: >>>> On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote: >>> I think it's really up to the DMB to decide how they want to run their >>> application process. I think you should let them figure it out with our >>> input. There appeared to me to be a very different ratio of >>> liking/not-liking your proposal based on if someone was employed by >>> Canonical or not. I would suggest that given the current level of >>> pressure on the membership boards by various Canonical people that this >>> would be a particularly good time NOT to be pushing about trying to >>> force a process change on them. >> >> Please, stop assuming input here has anything to do with Canonical. I >> can state unequivocally that my input has nothing to do with who I work >> for. I am but an Ubuntu developer here. If it helps, I've used my >> @ubuntu.com email address to make it even more clear :). >> >> I also do not believe anyone is trying to whitewash things for >> Canonical. I want to point out a few things: >> >> 1. Many Canonical employees started out as Ubuntu members before they >> were employees. I doubt they are now trying to subvert a community they >> were and currently are a part of. >> 2. I have not seen anyone at Canonical apply for membership levels that >> did not make sense for that individual. I am unaware of anyone being >> granted membership based even in part on their status as a Canonical >> employee. >> 3. There are many Canonical employees who do not participate in Ubuntu. >> I have not seen any of them try to subvert the Ubuntu community. >> 4. I have no numbers here, but I believe if you look at the percentage >> of top Ubuntu contributors you will find that many also happen to be >> Canonical employees. If you filter them out, you may be forsaking >> valuable input from a large portion of the community. >> >> Every once in a while there may be a case where an individual Canonical >> employee has stepped out of bounds. I feel I can guarantee that it was >> not done to harm the Ubuntu project or community, but the end result may >> have been just that. Where I have seen that happen, I believe the >> parties have taken responsibility and corrected their actions. However, >> I see no reason to believe there is a systemic problem. >> >> If you believe there is a problem, please bring it up in whole in a >> separate thread. Comments like this do nothing but poison the >> conversation. Please judge things on their merits, not on who the >> contributor is employed by. > > Much of this entire discussion was started by Canonical employees wanting > special case treatment for upstream work sponsored by Canonical. It was a > Canonical employee that proposed to the Tech Board, without even consulting > with the DMB first, to change how the DMB could assess applications and > restrict their ability to deny applications. Multiple members of multiple > boards have complained they feel like they are subject to harrassment from > Canonical managers if they don't approve a Canonical applicant. The > agree/disagree ratio on your proposed change in how to change the application > process was roughly reversed depending on if someone was employed by > Canonical > or not. > > I think there is a serious split between the Canonical and non-Canonical > parts > of the community right now and trying to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't > help. I think it is broad and systematic. I don't believe it's intentional. > > I do believe it's a problem.
If that's the case, then I am unaware of it. I will take your word for it, and would tend to agree with you if what you have stated is full and accurate. I apologize for any unbeknownst mistakes in my characterization of the relationship between Canonical and Ubuntu. However, please understand that I have nothing to do with any of that (other than ancillarily dragging myself into the upstream contributions discussion without knowing anything of it). Everything I read here on ubuntu-devel from Canonical employees appears to be unbiased to me. If you see bias, please feel free to call it out, but I haven't seen anything. However, do not assume that the intentions of everyone who works at Canonical are biased, and please evaluate input on the merits of the input alone. -- Chase -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel