Please vote by email: Rosco2 and the ubuntustudio packageset

[Lukasz Zemczak]

Mathieu, I think we don't need any other votes actually? For a motion
to 'always pass' it needs to have 4 +1's. Right now me, you, Jeremy
and Eric voted +1's, so that's +4. Counting that along with Robie all
remaining members vote -1, the result will still be positive, meaning
the motion will pass. Quoting the knowledgebase document [1]:

"The quorum is 50% + 1. For example, if the DMB has 7 members (as it
does at the time of writing), quorum is 4. This number is the minimum
number of +1 votes that we need for any resolution to pass. Members
are allowed to submit their votes in advance of a meeting, which will
count as if they are present when considering quorum.

(...)

Applications have to reach +1 in order to pass. If the meeting is
quorate and all members present vote in the same way (+1 or -1), then
the application will have passed or failed - the remaining members
cannot overturn the vote. "

That being said, I still think we should consider accepting the
narrowed down packageset as the official packageset. But that's a
separate thing.

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 15:42, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
<cyphermox at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> We're still missing one positive vote for this motion to pass, tbh.
>
> TL;dr: please vote on the amended proposition below.
>
> Since Micah is often unreachable (sorry Micah if you see these, and
> intended to respond -- I don't want to put words in your mouth or
> anything, just trying to make this process simpler for everyone); and
> given the relative urgency of addressing the situation:
>
> There was further discussion among DMB members, and it seems we are
> mostly in agreement about Ross' upload rights for the UbuntuStudio
> packageset, when that packageset is defined as being the contents of
> the image, minus the intersection of anything covered by other flavour
> packagesets (ie. Steve's proposal on the March 12 meeting).
>
> Further, understanding that the DMB is considering to revise the
> definition of flavour packagesets to be these "narrow" sets (no
> overlap between flavours), and encourage developers to apply for MOTU
> or core-dev upload rights (and grandfather this where appropriate: ie.
> this might just be rubber-stamping);
>
> I've applied the necessary changes to the packageset script; these are
> meant to be temporary; where we can re-extend the scope of the
> packagesets, or make this permanent and strongly encourage Ross and
> other developers to apply for MOTU to cover any overlap between
> flavours.
>
>
>
> AMENDED PROPOSITION:
>
> To grant Ross upload rights for the updated ubuntustudio packageset
> (narrowed down to eliminate overlap between flavours); see
> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/73m6JC3tr8/.
>
>
> Kindly,
>
> Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre <cyphermox at ubuntu.com>
> Freenode: cyphermox, Jabber: mathieu.tl at gmail.com
> 4096R/65B58DA1 818A D123 0992 275B 23C2  CF89 C67B B4D6 65B5 8DA1
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:34 AM Jeremy Bicha <jbicha at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:47 AM Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > >     Please vote on: give Rosco2 upload rights to the ubuntustudio
> > >     packageset - so to the current packageset and however it will look
> > >     in the nearest future
> >
> > I vote +1.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeremy Bicha
> >
> > --
> > Devel-permissions mailing list
> > Devel-permissions at lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/devel-permissions
>
> --
> Devel-permissions mailing list
> Devel-permissions at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/devel-permissions



-- 
Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
 Foundations Team
 lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
 www.canonical.com