Core Dev application: Paride Legovini (paride)

[Paride Legovini]

Dan Streetman wrote on 14/12/2021:
> 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.

First of all a big thanks to the DMB for allowing me to discuss my 
application at the 2021-12-13 meeting, despite it being overtime.

@Dan I appreciate your willingness to handle the simple majority vote 
for my application on 2021-12-27, thank you. By all means, do so only if
it doesn't stretch the DMB rules, and if you are going to hold the 
meeting in any case. I can wait until the following meeting, it is just 
not fully clear to me if I have to add my name in the agenda as an 
applicant, or if my application will count as a carried-over item.

Cheers,

Paride