Core Dev application: Paride Legovini (paride)

[Rafael David Tinoco]

Hello Robie,

>>> 
>>> 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 that this, despite being very respectful, and very politically
correct, which might, or might not, be good thing, is also not considering
practicality.

I think you should add to your logic, which tries to be very fair, and
remove any doubts about conflict of interest, some other considerations.

There are MANY endorsements, from other CORE devs, within his application.
All the feedback, from all other DMB members, were very good and its very
obvious, in this case, that Paride deserves to be a coredev.

I think, in this case, you're just postponing the inevitable and I would
like paride to become a coredev before EOY, as he deserves, IMO.

> 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.

Could you reconsider, please ?

Thank you