Sometimes, the symbolism of an act becomes more important than its actual consequences.
A case in point is the repositioning of the link to the community page on the Ubuntu home page, which has reopened the divide between Canonical, Ubuntu's commercial face, and parts of the Ubuntu community. Not only has that divide reappeared, but a possible error in tactics may have cost the community sympathy that is needed for reform.
At first, the change sounds unbelievably minor to have provoked the response it has. It is, after all, no more than a cosmetic change. Specifically, it is about the removal of the link to the Community page from the main menu on the Ubuntu home page and its repositioning in a sub-footer. The change leaves the main menu focused on product lines.
Inayaili León, Canonical's lead web designer, explains, "By focusing our site navigation on the products themselves, we aim to make it clear for someone who is new to the site that Ubuntu is about all of these things: PCs, phones, tablets—you name it." The sub-footer, León goes on to say, "gives people an opportunity to explore more of the section they’re in and read related resources like news and articles."
According to León, the change is the result of user testing and is meant to provide "a cleaner, fresher, but also more modular, approach."
León entitled the blog announcing these changes "Spring Cleaning," which suggests that Canonical regarded them as routine and relatively unimportant. And probably, in many other contexts, they would have been.
However, the changes came just a month after the last clash between the Ubuntu community and Canonical. A number of prominent Ubuntu contributors complained that Canonical and Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth were making decisions, while ignoring the community and reducing its role to obedience. The complaints were mostly respectful, making clear that those voicing them were still interested in contributing to Ubuntu but felt changes were needed.
Discussions with community organizer Jono Bacon led to several proposed changes, including teaching developers how to work in a free and open source software (FOSS) environment, regular leadership problem-solving sessions and more efforts to communicate with the community.
None of these proposed changes suggests the transfer of any decision-making powers to the community, which was what they essentially requested. Still, the discussions themselves or perhaps the hopes for improvement seem to have quieted community resentment for a few weeks.
However, how fragile the peace actually was is shown by how easily resentments flared up again over the case of the link that was—if not missing—at least misplaced.
In retrospect, the removal of the community link from the main menu in favor of product lines turned out to be the perfect metaphor for the idea that Canonical decisions were being driven by commercial considerations at the expense of traditional FOSS community values. What would otherwise be a piece of housekeeping became a symbol of much broader complaints.
Ubuntu volunteer and advocate Elizabeth Krumbach, who had been involved in earlier questioning about the decision-making, was the first to question the change. "Disappointed that the community link is gone from the header," she wrote in a telegraphed style. "It has always felt that having such a supportive and collaborative community was a big part of the value and understanding what 'Ubuntu is about.'"
Krumbach's comment was quickly followed by Ubuntu developer Benjamin Kerensa, who expressed surprise that, after the discussions with Bacon, the change had been made without anyone first mentioning it to the community.
In hindsight, León's response, "We understand your concerns. The Community link is present in the footer section of the site," might not have been the best one to make. To already suspicious ears, it might have sounded like an official brush-off that avoided the concerns expressed.
At any rate, the change prompted several weeks of discussion and suggestions for responses. For a while, Kerensa and Mark Terranova, the acting lead of the Ubuntu Oregon team, both attempted to submit it as a "blueprint" (topic for discussion) for the upcoming Ubuntu Developer Summit.
However, according to Terranova, these efforts came to nothing, partly because of their difficulties in submitting the blueprints in the proper form and partly because of some apparent confusion in the handling of the blueprints by the Summit's organizers.
This confusion, Terranova emphasizes, appears to have been genuine and not part of any effort to derail the submissions. In fact, he singles out Canonical employees Michael Hall and Chris Johnston as being helpful.
Although these efforts failed, they did show that some other Ubuntu participants were concerned about the project's direction—some to the point of considering leaving the community or of redirecting their efforts into less frustrating areas.
At the same time, Kerenska filed the change as a bug, asking other community members to mark it as affecting them. Although the validity of the bug was questioned, the tactic did result in discussion of the issue, including Kerensa's statement of his position.
According to Kerensa, the Ubuntu Design Team did not work transparently and acted unilaterally. The "Design Team is allowing a business decision to take priority over community," he wrote. Then, referring specifically to the discussions with Jono Bacon, he added, "yet [the] Canonical Community Team Lead said he wants specifically to make it easier for people to join the community."