Core Dev application: Paride Legovini (paride)

[Dan Streetman]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 11:00 AM Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

So though we canceled the Dec 27 meeting, as I mentioned at the end of
our last meeting I'm planning to hold a 'pro forma' session to
continue the 'absence counter' as outlined in our recent rules change
that introduced mandatory maximum number of missed meetings for
members, so that we can proceed to looking for new DMB members as soon
as possible in 2022.

If you'd prefer to continue to abstain from the vote, I'm happy to
hold a short meeting Dec 27 by myself to unanimously vote in favor of
Paride. That should cover all technicalities and stay within our rules
and regulations.


> And then I can avoid this conflict of interest and I will use this
> pattern going forward, unless I'm persuaded otherwise.
>
> Robie