DMB nominations, size and quorum

[Brian Murray]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:51:24PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> At the meeting of 2017-06-19[1] I said I'd put together my argument for
> why I think reducing quorum is better than reducing DMB size. Here it
> is.
> 
> Problem: we frequently don't reach quorum in IRC meetings, causing
> delays in processing applications and in making other decisions.
> 
> Summary: assuming that attendance rate will not change if we reduce the
> DMB's size, our inability to get quorum will not change, so our current
> problem will continue.
> 
> The current problem may be with certain members clashing on timing for
> the meetings, so in theory if they left the DMB, the attendance rate
> would go up. But I think that's only a short term matter that relates to
> the current board membership. If we are to change DMB size and quorum
> rules, I think we should be thinking in the long term including the
> inevitable case where the board has turned over completely.
> 
> Instead, what I propose is that we reduce quorum, and the +1s required
> to get an action approved[2].
> 
> Currently, by requiring N/2 +1 votes, we ensure that absent members
> would not be able to change the outcome of any vote even if they were
> present[3]. This comes at a cost: we cannot act if we cannot find N/2
> members to agree, and this seems to be most of the time recently.
> 
> Instead I propose that we drop this requirement, and focus on the
> opinions of those who _are_ able to attend. Absent members might have
> been able to change the outcome had they been present, but they weren't
> present, so we resolve to make progress over having to chase them.
> 
> For example: we could require that if a majority (≥50%) of those present
> at a normally scheduled meeting agree, then the motion passes, subject
> to a quorum of a third of the full board membership being present at
> that meeting. We will no longer consult absent members. I'm also saying
> that this means that when voting on an application, those board members
> present (if over a third) decide on whether that application succeeds or
> is declined and closed, also without reference to those absent.
> 
> Then we'd be able to pass or fail motions immediately providing that
> attendance is greater than a third, instead of having to fall back to
> chasing people up afterwards. This would be better than the half
> attendance requirement that we have right now.
> 
> The exact fraction (a third in my example) could be debated now and/or
> changed over time without changing the essense my proposal here; the
> point is that this change would allow us to go below half attendance but
> we could still remain effective.

If I'm understanding this correctly right now we have 7 people in the
DMB and our new quorum would be 3, with that it is possible that
somebody could become an Ubuntu Core Developer with only 2 votes and
with 4 people not voicing an opinion at all? Presumably the members were
added to the board because other Ubuntu developers value their opinion
but with the new system we wouldn't be taking them into account.  I'm
not sure how I feel about that.

That being said if we go down this route I wonder if we shouldn't shoot
for a unanimous vote of the 3 people present, for applications only, and
if it isn't then take it to the mailing.

--
Brian Murray