DMB: proposal for minimum meeting attendance

Tue Nov 2 15:59:03 UTC 2021

And just to confirm: I'm +1 as well on this proposal.  Reqiured meeting 
attendance is a must I think in this case.

On 11/2/21 11:41, Lukasz Zemczak wrote:
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/attachments/20211102/73131af9/attachment.html>