Diddledan with the possibly home-grown solution! Thanks for providing an example of a more user-friendly alternative. 
I totally agree. Becoming an Ubuntu member should not be such a chore. Quite a few of the ubuntu-za guys that helped me and others tirelessly found the whole process to become a member too much. Why add hurdles to the process. I agree the interview was also daunting but fun. Who amongst us was not nervous when we had our interview, and greatly relieved when accepted into the community
2 Likes
Wiki Page requirement: I suggest moving the summary-of-contributions from wiki to discourse or to folks’ own blogs.
Discourse posts can be edited like a wiki, and discourse access is faster/easier to obtain.
6 Likes
That’s a nice idea, we could have a “membership applications” category here. A user could start a discussion detailing their contributions, and others could add their testimonials as replies.
3 Likes
Oh! This is a really good idea. There’s less potential for holdup with wiki editor approval, and there is pretty much no risk involved, since anyone can already sign up for Discourse access already, and it can be edited, Wiki style.
I like the idea.
We have had such a process with the forum in the past. I think it is easy for all to write testimonials in discourse as in the wiki.
1 Like
Looking at Torsten’s link to the forum led me to discover the “Code of Conduct Signing Assistant”, which looks interesting:
I believe this shows 2 things:
First, if someone was willing to write a wizard to automate the process, it’s too complex. Second, if someone could automate the key generation and signing process, it supports my point that this doesnt really prove anything other than it’s your launchpad account.
2 Likes
diddledan this is a good idea and it seems much simpler, It was a trying experience for me about ten years ago signing the Code of Code Conduct as well and I agree a much easier user experience is needed, In regards to the wiki issue we could have a Candidate create a thread here on discourse with all the same information that we currently request Candidates to include in their wiki page, and testimonials can be posted by replying to the Candidates thread, this is just a rough idea, this is could just be a stop gap measure until the wikli system can be upgraded or replaced because it definitely does not work as intended, many times while updating a wiki page it would not work properly for me and it is very slow and not user friendly for a new user, I like the idea of starting a new wiki system then locking the old pages and just have them as read only but even if the wiki system gets redone it is likely to be quite a while before it is started and longer before it is completed.
As for having a method of granting Membership without a meeting because a Candidate is not available when the meetings are offered, as an Ubuntu Board Member we can and have voted on very rare occasions on the Mailing List to grant or deny membership.
1 Like
Apologies, I posted the same thing about moving the requirement to create a wiki page to discourse without seeing your post, that’s what happens when I am trying to squeeze in a post just before going to sleep.
Even though I’m not an Ubuntu member, I like this idea very much (especially because I don’t like the MoinMoin syntax). Maybe a separate “Membership application” category is a good idea.
1 Like
All sounds crackin’. I’ve thought about applying a few times and each time been put off by the process, a lack of understanding of what is required, and a lack of understanding about what it means. shurg
Soon I’m going to start work on refreshing the documentation around how to become an Ubuntu member, along with what that means, as part of my work on the community team to make things more accessible. Naturally improving the experience before all of that makes a whole lot of sense.
Reading through, it looks like the biggest hurdles are the wiki and the gpg signing. The ‘real-time’ interview is the only thing that’s persisted. So @mark.johnson’s original ‘how it should be’, becomes:
Document your contributions on Discourse and invite members of the community to give testimonials in a ‘membership applications’ category
- No need to be part of the launchpad wiki editors group
- No need to bug popey
- All at least while the Wiki is re-done. It is going to be. But it’s unlikely to be soon and it’s unlikely to be fast
- Easy to seed a template that mirrors what already exists on the wiki
Agree to the code of conduct by signing something like Contributor agreement form | Contributors | Ubuntu .
Present your application to the membership board
- Still a real-time interview with the board
Thoughts?
The thing that hasn’t had a lot of discussion is making IRC info more prominent? Personally I think there should be a way to do all of this without IRC (not replace, just another option). Making the information more prominent/clear makes sense, but I’d say there should be a way to do the meeting without IRC.
I understand that’s where things live and have lived for a long time, but I’d wager most new people won’t have it, and setting it up and figuring it out is an unnecessary hurdle. Someone could contribute to Ubuntu and do enough to become a member without ever touching IRC, and that’s a good thing. A new communication tool though is a big decision and is a whole other thread, just wanted to put that out there.
All of this is super doable. It would mean a few edits to the wiki to update the process, a few additions to discourse, and someone creating a CoC form. Where would that live? ubuntu.com?
2 Likes
Instead of a new form, I think @mark.johnson was suggesting staying with the current Launchpad tracking. The method of signing would change from import-GPG-and-sign to simply using the existing Launchpad credentials (checkbox in profile).
In other words, a ticket to Launchpad requesting the change…unless somebody in this thread is already familiar with that part of the Launchpad code and wants to write the patch.
1 Like
I feel that the IRC meeting is important.
Folks understandably don’t like it: You are putting yourself out there to be judged. Who enjoys that?
However, it has benefits also:
- It demonstrates that community leaders care enough to carve out time to talk to you about your goals and to welcome you.
- It demonstrates the standards of those leaders, and encourages both peer leaders and the new member to maintain high standards.
- It’s definite: No mucking about with bureaucracy or maybes or delays. You get a straight Yes-or-No answer at the meeting; the vote is done right in front of you.
- It’s symbolic: A brief ceremony of acceptance and welcome.
3 Likes
I totally agree with all of this. Just not that it needs to happen on IRC specifically.
1 Like
It doesn’t work that well when there is no quorum though, and the membership meeting can’t take place (especially when it’s repeated again the next time).
Yes I recall apology each time (& suggestion to use another time slot as they had issues getting quorum at the time slot that was easiest for me to reach from downunder as board members where all EU or US timezones, @lucyllewy if I recall correctly was there each time, or at least twice of the failed meetings)… but problems with IRC meetings do occur. The fourth time when a quorum existed it matched your description yes, but for me the failed three prior meetings sort of colored the experience somewhat.
1 Like
@rhys-davies My recommendation is to leave out the parts that refer to no need to sign with gpg key on launchpad and the part about not needing to contact Popey, no need to bring up anything about what’s not needed imo, it looks real good for a first draft, thank you for writing this up.
I am reading and responding from my cell and I have trouble with my old eyes sometimes so if I miss something or typo that’s why.
1 Like
Ooooof. I am glad you persisted, but that definitely would put someone off the experience. And even if that change in communication platforms happens (which is a whole other thread and issue), while it solves the “IRC as a technology hurdle” issue, it doesn’t solve those issues behind it. Though maybe @lucyllewy could tell us if that’s gotten better since you applied.
One potential compromise would be to have the real-time interview be a part of the process, with the other option being a take home short answer (or something like that), and then the Membership Board could vote yes or no on the mailing list, and then announce the result to the applicant over e-mail and, if successful, make a post announcing the new member on Discourse, much like they do now.
I do think that signing the CoC is important, or making some sort of recorded pledge to abide by it. Could the process be better than it is now? Heck yes. But I don’t think it’s something we should leave out, though I was up early and so I might have misunderstood you, @Wild_Man !
1 Like
@madhens No I was not saying it shouldn’t be a part of the process, I believe it is needed, I agree having a page like an application page for signing is a good alternative if the powers to be do not want to make it where launchpad is much easier then it is now, but Ian-wesser has what I think is the best solution with making launchpad user friendly for signing the CoC.
1 Like