Core Dev application: Paride Legovini (paride)

[Robie Basak]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 01:14:00PM -0500, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 8:20 AM Paride Legovini <paride at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear DMB,
> >
> > I hereby apply to become a Core Developer:
> 
> At the DMB meeting on 2021-12-13, your application received three +1
> votes, which was unanimous of those DMB members attending, however per
> our rules we need one more +1 vote for the application to pass, or the
> application needs a simple majority of votes at the next scheduled DMB
> meeting. Since our meeting ran quite long, some of our DMB members
> were not able to stay for the entire meeting.
> 
> @rbasak can you provide your vote, which I believe was +1 in this
> case? That will be enough +1 votes for the application to pass.

I have generally been trying to follow the policy that I will abstain if
the applicant is a member of my team at Canonical. So I would really
prefer the three other DMB members would vote, because that would be the
most consistent way of handling this conflict of interest.

As an exception, since DMB attendance at meetings has historically been
poor and it's harmful for applications to drag on, I've been providing a
+1 if (and only if) my vote will then achieve the absolute majority
requirement and all other votes are unanimously in favour. In other
words, only if there are 3 +1s and no other votes at a meeting.

But now we have a simple majority being sufficient at a subsequent
meeting (new DMB rule), so perhaps it would be better to follow this
instead, to eliminate my exception above which wasn't great to do
anyway.

I think then, going forward, I will simply abstain in the case of a
Canonical team member applicant, and allow the new simple majority rule
to take care of the case when other members are absent.

So no formal vote from me - sorry - but I hope that you understand the
reason. Even though I am in favour of Paride becoming a core dev. I'll
allow the simple majority requirement to kick in on the next meeting.
And then I can avoid this conflict of interest and I will use this
pattern going forward, unless I'm persuaded otherwise.

Robie
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/attachments/20211214/fafb10f8/attachment.sig>