DMB: proposal for adjustment to quorum rule

[Dan Streetman]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 9:11 AM Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> Again, thank you for bringing this up.
>
> Related is my proposal from 2017 to tackle the same problem, which
> resulted in discussion but no consensus at the time:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2017-July/001141.html
>
> My proposal then still stands now, additionally with some variants
> suggested from the previous discussion. So I think we have:
>
> A: if not enough members to reach an absolute majority at a first
> meeting, then at the next meeting only a simple majority of members
> present is required.

Personally, I prefer (A), as outlined in my proposal email.

>
> B: only a simple majority of members present is required.

I'm against this one, as I think the DMB should strive for quorum when
possible; I think requiring at least one reschedule for any
applications that don't reach quorum is reasonable. That essentially
puts "on notice" all DMB members that they need to show up at the
rescheduled meeting.

>
> C: a formal quorum is required of some number or percentage (to be
> decided).

Against this as on the rescheduled application, I believe we need to
respect the applicant's time - if the DMB couldn't get its members to
attend, that's not their fault, and having an arbitrary lower
percentage still may result in delayed application.

>
> D: A unanimous vote of members present is required.

I think this is really a separate discussion, if applications need a
unanimous vote or not. Against this as a solution to this problem, but
I'm not necessarily against it as a separate motion.

>
> E: C, but also requires the vote to be unanimous.

against for the same reasons as C.

>
> I wonder if current DMB members could rank their preferences, and if
> supporting C, then specify the number of percentage they prefer.
>
> Definitions:
>
> Absolute majority: more than 50% of all DMB members.
>
> Simple majority: more than 50% of DMB members present at a particular
> meeting.
>
> Informal quorum: the minimum number required such that absent members
> cannot change outcome given that an absolute majority is required. This
> is how we operate currently.
>
> Formal quorum: some other definition, details to be decided, that
> specifies how many members are required to be present such that a simple
> majority of those members present can then pass a motion.