DMB: proposal for minimum meeting attendance

Tue Nov 2 15:41:19 UTC 2021

Hey Dan!

Sorry for the delay, this mailing thread got somehow lost in my inbox.

I don't see any reason not to be +1 on this. I am also a bit concerned
that we'll have people that are willing to apply for the DMB,
especially that we already had some cases when we had trouble filling
open positions on the board. But still, I suppose it's better to have
at least some formality regarding required meeting attendance. Seems
fair.

So yeah, I'll be +1 as well.

Cheers,

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 at 20:10, Dan Streetman <ddstreet at canonical.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 22, 2021, Dan Streetman <ddstreet at canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 8:52 AM Dan Streetman <ddstreet at canonical.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:51 PM Dan Streetman <ddstreet at canonical.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 3:44 PM Dan Streetman <ddstreet at canonical.com> 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).
>> > >
>> > > To refresh the proposal, I think this is the current wording after
>> > > previous discussion:
>> > >
>> > > "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. Since the
>> > > number of members required for quorum is 1/2 the number  of active DMB
>> > > members, rounded up, the change in the number of active members will
>> > > affect quorum. 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. Previous DMB members,
>> > > including those changed to inactive due to this rule, are eligible to
>> > > run in the new election and any later elections. This proposal is not
>> > > retroactive, and the attendance requirement shall start the first
>> > > meeting after this proposal is adopted."
>> > >
>> > > I think there's been enough time for full discussion of this proposal
>> > > from existing DMB members, and I've at least replied to all concerns
>> > > expressed over email.
>> > >
>> > > I'd like to officially request a vote on this proposal starting
>> > > immediately over email, to be completed before the next scheduled DMB
>> > > meeting (which is on Oct 18, 2021).
>> >
>> > Follow up reminder to please vote before the next scheduled meeting on Nov 1.
>>
>> Another follow up reminder to PLEASE VOTE. For reference, the current votes are:
>>
>> Dan Streetman +1
>> Rafael Tinoco +1
>> Robie Basak -1
>>
>> (Thomas I didn't see a confirmation from you to my request for a
>> formal vote, but since you did give a +1 in your email from Aug 25 I
>> will assume that applies for your formal vote, please let me know
>> otherwise)
>> Thomas Ward +1
>>
>> That leaves this vote at net of +2 (with a range of -1 to 5). So we
>> need 1 more +1 to pass, or 3 more -1 to fail.
>>
>> Still to vote:
>> Eric Desrochers
>> Simon Quigley
>> Łukasz Zemczak
>>
>>
>
> Eric, Simon, and Łukasz, PLEASE VOTE. Remember that +0 (abstain) is a valid vote, if that is your choice.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Specifically, these board members have not yet voted; please vote your
>> > -1, +0, or +1:
>> > Eric Desrochers
>> > Robie Basak
>> > Simon Quigley
>> > Thomas Ward
>> > Łukasz Zemczak
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I'll start the vote with my +1.
>> > >
>> > > Rafael and Thomas, you provided +1 before, but I'm not sure if you
>> > > were just agreeing or actually voting, so could you provide your vote
>> > > again just for clarity?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 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

-- 
Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
 Foundations Team
 lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
 www.canonical.com