On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 09:05:08AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I still like Ubuntu Contributing Developers and not just because it's
> appropriately corporate sounding. Here are my reasons:
>
> 1. It is self describing. It's a team for people who have contributed to
> Ubuntu. We even say "Thank you for your contribution to Ubuntu".
>
> 2. Membership is about significant and sustained contribution. I think
> it's good to have this in the name.
>
> 3. It parallels other uses in English. A "Contributing Editor" in the
> newspaper business, is someone who is a newer editor that is still learning
> the trade.
>
> 4. Because of the above, it's easy to explain.
>
> 5. It shouldn't be controversial, so we can just do it and move on.
>
> To argue against "Hacker" options, in addition to the obvious connotation
> issue, I completely agree with Jordan Mantha's about this team being about
> packaging and not about programming. That only deepens the connotation
> problem.
These are good points, and I like this name.
I also like the "Apprentice" title in some form.
But I think it would help to put this all in context. Does someone
have a vision of, or handy link to, all the different sorts of teams
and paths to membership and further involvement that Ubuntu offers?
I know it isn't really a hierarchy and can't do justice to the network
topology here, but e.g.:
Ubuntero,
loco member
ubuntu member
Ubuntu Contributing Developer/apprentice
MOTU
Core-dev
Loco council
Regional council
Technical board
Community Council
I think a disadvantage of the "Apprentice" title is that it carries a
bit less weight and some degree of incompleteness, and some people
may want to just stay in that role without feeling pressure to
graduate to MOTU status/responsibility.
Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
