DMB: proposal for minimum meeting attendance

[Dan Streetman]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 8:51 AM Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for proposing this. I agree that this is an important problem
> that we need to solve. I'm also in agreement in principle with your
> plan, but there are a few consequences I think we should have clarity on
> before proceeding.
>
> 1. What happens to voting requirements during periods when the DMB is
> short of its usual number of members? Normally we operate on an absolute
> majority requirement
> (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Quorum).
> If, for example, the DMB is reduced to three members as a result of this
> proposal, then is it acceptable for the DMB to act with only two DMB
> members in favour of some particular motion?

I initially had a line explicitly clarifying this but took it out from my email.

I believe DMB quorum should be 1/2, rounded up, of the total number of
active members. So yes, when members become inactive, the total number
is reduced, and quorum is also reduced. I think this is essentially
our current definition, but I'm not against adding a line to clarify
that to the proposal.

>
> 2. What the plan if we're unable to repopulate the DMB in the long term?
> It has always been difficult to find enough people to volunteer. Are we
> willing to continue with a reduced number, such as the 2/3 example
> above?

I think continuing with a smaller number is better than long-term
inability to reach quorum. If members aren't attending, they should be
replaced, regardless of how easy or hard the replacement is.

>
> 3. Can a member who has been removed due to inactivity in this manner
> stand again immediately in the subsequent election?

It's a good question, and personally I think they should be able to,
yes. Both because excluding them would add more complexity to the
proposal, as well as leaving the policy open to their re-instatement
(by being voted back in) if there's some reason they missed so many
meetings. In any case, during the new election, I'm sure the fact they
were just removed will be mentioned; I don't think we necessarily need
to codify that into policy.

Additionally, if that situation does become problematic for the DMB -
for example if a member is removed for absence multiple times but
keeps being voted back in - the DMB is obviously free to make
additional rules to clarify or modify the rules as needed later. I
would hope it wouldn't become a problem, and thus I don't think we
need to worry about it now.

>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 03:44:25PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > I'd like to present a proposal for a change to the DMB membership
> > rules, for consideration and discussion at the next DMB meeting
> > (and/or over email, of course).
> >
> > Background:
> >
> > The DMB has historically had problems with reaching quorum at its
> > fortnightly meetings, which sometimes delayed or even blocked
> > applicants from presenting their case for membership. I've (privately)
> > recorded roll since joining the DMB, and while our record of reaching
> > quorum last year (2020) after the elections was quite good, at 82% (18
> > of 22 meetings), this year it's fallen, and we're down to 58% (10 of
> > 17 meetings). Note that some meetings have no applicants, so failure
> > to reach quorum for those isn't always critical, but it is an
> > indicator of overall problems in attendance. The attendance record for
> > each of our members, in increasing order but without naming any
> > members, is: 0%, 18%, 53%, 65%, 71%, 71%, 94%.
> >
> > This past meeting (2021-08-23), we had difficulty reaching quorum, but
> > finally did get enough members, however then unfortunately the meeting
> > ran long due to the initial delay and we lost quorum before completing
> > the vote for an application.
> >
> > Definitions for purposes of this rule:
> > "scheduled meeting": listed on the DMB wiki agenda page, regardless of
> > whether a meeting actually takes place or there are any agenda items.
> > "attendance": sends any IRC message, from their recognized IRC nick,
> > to the IRC channel where the meeting is held, sometime during the
> > scheduled time for the meeting (or slightly before)
> >
> > Proposal:
> >
> > I propose amending the DMB rules of membership (which I don't think we
> > have documented currently, in which case we should first write them
> > down on our KB wiki page) to set a minimum attendance requirement as
> > follows:
> >
> > "Any DMB member who fails to attend 6 consecutive scheduled DMB
> > meetings (during a period no shorter than 12 weeks) shall be
> > considered inactive and removed from membership in the DMB. At such
> > time as any DMB member is found to be inactive due to this rule, the
> > current DMB chair will add an action item to schedule a public vote
> > for a new DMB member. This proposal is not retroactive, and the
> > attendance requirement shall start the first meeting after this
> > proposal is adopted."
> >
> > --
> > Devel-permissions mailing list
> > Devel-permissions at lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/devel-permissions