Here's some information.

  • The DMB grants both Ubuntu Membership and upload rights to (portions of) the Ubuntu archive. Both are assessed rather differently (one community and one somewhat more technical). Most of the current argument is about Membership (the only person the DMB deferred for upload rights was correctly so; it was a Per-Package Uploader application for packages which were not in the archive yet)
    • The rest of the current argument stems from the DMB failing to achieve quorum a few times.
      1. This is not a unique problem to the DMB. All boards (up to and including the Technical Board and Community Council, FWIW) experience this from time to time.
      2. We are conducting an internal poll to find a new meeting time which is more amenable to achieving quorum, and exploring alternatives such as using email voting a bit more. We are firm in wanting to retain the basic structure of our application process though.
  • Sometimes people who encourage others to apply for membership have a different idea of what is required than those assessing the applications do. Sometimes these people doing the encouragement get annoyed when people they have pushed are deferred because of this. Membership boards expect to see a significant and sustained period of contribution, where sustained ordinarily means at least 6 months. Please bear this in mind.
  • Members of most of these membership-granting boards are volunteers, and I imagine their motivation for wanting to participate on the boards is to recognise and reward contributors for doing excellent work. They are contributors themselves who have feelings and motivation, both of which can be taken away when others let their frustration have a target. Please let cool heads prevail, even when you are disappointed.
  • As project leaders have repeatedly said, we elect governance bodies to take decisions, and we should trust them to make those decisions. If people are deferred, I expect everybody involved to deal with the situation with grace and sensitivity. If someone wishes to appeal, they should do this through the appropriate private communication channels first, only going public if this does not work.
  • The Community Council is going to consider to what extent upstream contributions shall be able to form an individual's portfolio of contributions as part of their membership application.
  • When you discuss someone's work, particularly if you are trying to change the way they go about it, it is polite to include them in the conversation. When this happens repeatedly in a short period of time, people may begin to suspect something strange is going on.

Is risking alienating people who have volunteered to serve as community leaders really worth this? Remember, we are only talking about a handful of deferrals here. Every one of those people is welcome to come back once they have addressed the issues at hand.

All of this could have been dealt with with some sensitive private communication.