Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu "Memberships" Questioned
mxh83 writes "Apparently if you have 'sustained' and 'significant' contributions to Ubuntu, you can become a 'Ubuntu Member' and get some freebies. 'While there is no precise period that we look for, it is rare for applications to be accepted from people contributing for less than 6 months. It is vital to be well prepared for the meeting. You need to convince the membership board that you have contributed to Ubuntu.' Have they thought this incentive through? What about recognition for smaller contributors? And who judged what is a 'significant' contribution to a community project?"
Update: 01/06 20:33 GMT by S : Changed the title to reflect the fact that Ubuntu memberships have actually been around for a few years now.
"You've contributed many manweeks of your life improving code. We're here to determine whether you might be worthy of receiving a free t-shirt."
What about money contribution?
I think this is a good move on Ubuntu's part. It should create envy in those who don't meet the criteria to contribute more and work towards a goal. I think this may help increase interest in wanting to contribute. I know it has for me.
Which marketing department dipshit thought this stupid idea up?
You need to convince the membership board [...] And who judged what is a 'significant' contribution
This is amazing... we've gone from people not reading the articles, to not reading the *summaries*, to the *submitters* not reading what they themselves wrote!
CmdrTaco, I know it's tradition for editors not to read the summaries, but isn't it taking it a bit far to not read ones you wrote yourself?!?!?
It sounds like one of those dreadful golf clubs - surely there is a better way of recognising significant contributions without the potential for "membership commiittees" screwing things up?
At least I received a free copy of Windows 7 for having a Windows 7 house party.
...that would have me as a member. :)
I like the quote in the article, "Instead, people should set a goal of making substantial and sustained contributions to Ubuntu. By doing this, the focus shifts from working hard in order to get one of the Membership benefits to working hard in order to make Ubuntu a greater distribution and improve the community,"
You know, people are going to want the benefits.
I wonder if bitching about the GUI or how I don't get to sync my blackberry using a GUI I like counts.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Do I get to complain about lame mono apps being included in favor of better gtk or KDE ones.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You already have to [digitally] sign a document and agree to a code of conduct in order to become an "Ubuntero", which among other minor benefits is necessary in order to get access to the PPA system. This is just another layer of evaluation for another icon next to your name on Ubuntu sites and... whatever it was they're giving you. In return, they give you the right to represent yourself as a "member" of Ubuntu, kind of like an employee except you don't get paid :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ads Disabled x
Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!
Ubuntu membership has not been introduced recently, it has been around from before I started Ubuntu (2006), at least. This is not news. The title needs changing.
Ubuntu members get @ubuntu.com addresses, their blogs syndicated on planet.ubuntu.com, a free subscription to LWN, and they vote for certain things.
What if I was out drinking (heavily) one night with Mark Shuttleworth and I told him about this crazy computer idea I had.
Who knows, maybe Ubuntu was a direct result of me processing tequilla shots!
This has existed for a number of years now...
This seems to represent exactly what the open source world needs less of: exclusivity reasons for people to gloat and act superior.
(and one of the benefits of the membership is
Voting privileges to confirm Ubuntu Community Council nominations
Wow. Just like voting in the former Soviet Union. Glad somebody is keeping old traditions alive.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
I wonder if a Debian Developer who has uploaded a new package version to unstable since Ubuntu first forked would be approved? Or upstream developers? I presume not and this is just about recognising contributions exclusively for the benefit of Ubuntu.
I'll resist a rant and simply offer a link to Greg Kroah-Hartman's speach at the 2008 linux plumbers conference to show why I for one value contributions to Ubuntu as next to worthless http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3385088017824733336
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
And even then, who can say if the judges are capable? Are these the same people that deemed PulseAudio ready for default inclusion? This doesn't bode well. Not well at all...
I wouldn't worry too much about that.
Like, okay, you know in Star Wars, when Leia hands out medals to Luke and Han, but Chewie's just standing there on the podium - he doesn't get a medal?
Well, here's the thing, if you're an Ubuntu contributor and you're chosen for membership, it's like getting those medals. But if you're an Ubuntu contributor, and you're not chosen for membership, you're like Chewie - no medal. But that's not a bad thing, because, you know what? Chewie is standing up there on the podium too, and you know what, it doesn't matter if he gets a medal - because Chewie is a frickin' bad ass, and Chewie knows it.
Hell, the only reason Chewie doesn't get a medal is cause he's got like 20 or so of his own from back in the day. Let the noobs have some fun, you know? Besides, if he wanted too, he could take that medal from whiny-boy or smirk-merc. Lightsabers? Blasters? They're no use when you fuggin' rip their arms out of their sockets.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
It's a perfectly fair question. The membership board needs to have defined standards; if they're just willy-nilly casting votes yes/no, and they're "members", then the membership is almost certainly going to consist of a very small group of people who hold the same opinions (or are friends / business partners.)
They also should be held responsible to someone. Otherwise, they can do whatever the hell they want, including ignore guidelines given to them.
This may come as a shock to some of the younger (in terms of age/maturity) members of slashdot, but corporate governance is complicated, and little things matter. Just like with civil and criminal law. Think of that the next time Slashdot posts a "some judge did X" story and you all pile on the "how stupid" bandwagon.
Please help metamoderate.
openSUSE has had a very similar program for some time.
http://en.opensuse.org/Members
Members get to vote on the board, and get a free boxed/retail copy of each openSUSE release.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Why not? Ubuntu *has* DDs as members; conversely, Debian has DDs that started at Ubuntu. Also for upstream. You presume wrong. If you had a bit of interest you could have checked, but your (almost religious) prejudice (from Latin, "pre-judge", literally) seems to block the possibility of enlightenment. I am not saying Ubuntu is always right, as I am not saying your (and other DDs) position is always wrong.
This is no news, by the way (both the article and your position -- and Greg K-H' s). And both are wrong, although Greg H-K is _less_ wrong, since he only cares about contributions to the kernel.
There's something about Ubuntu's approach to community wrangling that's a little off putting. It's not fair to call them cult-like, but there's still a faint odor of that sort of doubleplusgood groupthink going on.
"Ubuntu Membership itself is a lot less important than what it represents. People often set a goal of becoming an Ubuntu Member because they want one of the many benefits that goes along with it. Instead, people should set a goal of making substantial and sustained contributions to Ubuntu. By doing this, the focus shifts from working hard in order to get one of the Membership benefits to working hard in order to make Ubuntu a greater distribution and improve the community, which is a lot more important than being recognized as an Ubuntu Member."
They're not just telling us what we ought to be doing, they're telling us what our motivation should be. It's not enough to do the work, you have to have the proper mindset.
Other distros are better with the engineering, and not as creepy.
I can see it now.
you: Let me leave a business card.
other person: You work at Ubuntu?
you: No, but I made 10,000 posts in the forums (insert "no, but stayed at Holiday Inn" joke here)
Ubuntu Memberships are not "new" by any means - they have been around for _AGES_ - so to imply they have been "introduced" is sloppy reporting outright.
I've forgotten most of the book. Did he elaborate on how they dealt with divergent views on politics, morals, philosophy? How do you deal with stagnation (one world view) vs change (anarchy)? All of these "sciences" are opinion based and have change over time. For example, "God chose the king" changes to democracy.
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
yeah, i cannot imagine there are many slashdot users that condone Ubuntu over Debian, tis utter blasphemey, either run the real deal or get in line with the other morons who cant get past a GUI.
This project is well on its way to becoming a kleptocracy. While there are many moribund software projects, this one is destined to become an organization filled with status/power seeking individuals vying for trinkets and icons with the persons responsible for distributing the trinkets surrounded by yes-geeks while the amount of giving back to the broader community continues to decline.
Chances are excellent the project will take on much of the Miguel De Icaza weirdness. An example would be seeking approval from an organization that has nothing but contempt for the Mono project at C-level.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Unfortunately, it seems as if some people can't discern meaning from the English language, and that's just to be expect with some of the people here on Slashdot.
Yes, there is a membership board but it is perfectly reasonable to question who is on that board and what criteria they use or will use. The second statement does that. The two statements you've quoted are not the same thing and the former does not answer the latter. OK, the latter is not great English, but fuck, this is Slashdot and with the amount of articles posted you aren't always going to get a perfect summary.
I know how to tell if my contribution is significant. It's really very simple: I get paid.
Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
Let the proprietary geeks have their fun!
Quack, quack.
They should initially include any and all Debian contributors.
Heinlein dealt with divergent views by ignoring them. On a philosophical level, the biggest difference between the book and real life is that, in the book, there is an accepted science of ethics, and it is possible to use symbolic logic to answer moral questions. In other words, Heinlein posited a world in which his particular opinions were proved correct, and wrote a book about it.
There was no attempt to deal with stagnation vs. change. The form of government was justified on the grounds that it worked: effective would-be revolutionaries apparently found it more attractive to work from within the system. There was no attempt to justify it on other grounds. Religion was apparently important (the platoon had a "padre", and the soldiers felt they needed him) but absolutely no details were given. There was very little background on the world outside the military. While the citizenship service was not necessarily military (there were indications to that effect in the book, not real obvious), there was no mention of anybody being able to do service while avoiding a combat role (like conscientious objectors).
It's an interesting read, and did a good job of exploring some ideas, but don't expect too much of it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I agree with you. This will backfire. People want status in their chosen group. We are social beings and this is wired in. In an openly competitive system this is not a problem. Some win, some lose. We all know the rules when we start.
But in a socialized context like a FOSS project the motivations for contribution are far more complex -- sort of fragile. People sacrifice for an idea and a common goal. And as long as all feel the equality of sacrifice and perceive that common goals are being met then there is a good chance of overall harmony. And, like it or not, Ubuntu has been the star of the show for a while now. ALL contributors, both large and small, can take satisfaction in that. But once some animals become more equal than others (even just a little bit) well, life will surely get rocky down on the FOSS farm.
Hmmm. I wonder how the Debian crew are feeling about this? Do they get a tee shirt, too?
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
I'm not sure what exactly is "questioned" here? 1. If you show that you are serious about being a contributor to Ubuntu (or it's subprojects) you get more trust in the system and become an official member. All contributions, even small ones get recognised, even if you're not a member. 2. Who gets to give membership? This is well documented on the Ubuntu wiki, there are various councils who get to decide. These councils are voted in by the Ubuntu members. 3. Most other distributions, and other community projects have similar programs.
I have to wonder why Ubuntu developers waste time on Ubuntu when it would be more constructive, less controversial and serve their target audience better to work on furthering the Debian Desktop Project instead. I am aware that many Ubuntu developers are also Debian developers, which makes this all the more pressing of a question.
Furries make the internet go.
I'm a member and I've never contributed a piece of code.
I do a bit of bug triaging and reporting on Launchpad. I work with the Loco here and people locally to get involved and educated in free software using Ubuntu.
If you ask me the membership doesn't do much overall. The major reason I went for it was to get the @ubuntu.com email address that l think helps on the advocacy front when I give someone my business card. Makes it seem more legit in some way.
Yes. After I made my comment I noticed that later comments were saying that this was a long-standing system. I also saw that people were pretty cool with it in general. I realized my comment was a non-starter.
Sooooo. Never mind. I was wrong. Again...Dear.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
If by "not real obvious indications", you mean stated explicitly several times, then yeah. The book is very clear that the majority of volunteers do NOT wind up in military service (although they all get something hard, unpleasant, and usually dangerous to some degree). The protaganist's high school friend who signed up the same time he did wound up doing civvie work at a research station on Pluto (which got blown up by the Bugs offstage, as a matter of fact).
That said, it must be admitted that the novel focuses on the military service to the exclusion of all else; Heinlein felt that honorable military service was the highest form of duty to one's fellow man.
You do get to specify which branches of the service you want to serve in when you sign up, but there's no guarantee you'll get them. The protagonist definitely did NOT sign up for the Mobile Infantry! But on the other hand, it was blatantly obvious that he was unsuited of all the branches he did ask for. We're not really given enough data to judge how likely you are to get your choice. Heinlein didn't deal with conscientious objectors because he didn't have much time for them. He regarded pacifists as people who enjoyed the benefits of civilization but didn't want to shoulder the duties necessary to maintain it.
In the end, however, I'm perfectly willing to admit the novel's limitations. It really doesn't go much into how the government itself works at all, other than how you must volunteer for service in order to become a voting citizen. The command structure of the Mobile Infantry is described in much greater detail.
Education? Military?
Not on this planet.
"Welcome to boot camp, recruits. Repeat after me - HADJI HADJI KILL THE HADJI. Now you see this thing here? This is a rifle. This is a trigger. Pull the trigger."
From what I recall (and it has been a very long time) the entire idea would have made conscientious objectors unnecessary. It wasn't mandatory to enter service. You just couldn't become a citizen without it. The idea explained in the book was that the people who successfully completed their duty had proven their ability to think about the welfare of others over their own welfare, and thus were best suited to vote, since that's what government is all about. I'm not sure I agree with it working out that way in practice, but the theory is interesting.