DMB: proposal for adjustment to quorum rule

[Dan Streetman]

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:18 PM Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 11:24:58AM -0500, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > > I disagree. Applicant meetings take priority, and they've been busy
> > > recently, including having ran over. You've also had multiple other
> > > threads running at once. I expect to spend 60-90 minutes every two weeks
> > > on DMB stuff, and that's where my recent "DMB time" has been spent.
> > > These issues are long running ones and can wait until we don't have >1h
> > > application meetings. Apart from the last DMB meeting was in my evening
> > > when I was otherwise busy, but made it anyway. Nobody else showed up, so
> > > I took my evening back.
> >
> > Regardless of other member's attendace, if you had 60-90 minutes
> > scheduled for DMB work you could have voted in the poll at that time.
>
> I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. As I say, I was otherwise
> busy and went out of my way to make a realtime meeting. Your thread is
> of a lower priority and could wait. I might have sent my excuses and
> since nobody else showed up anyway, this wouldn't be a discussion.
>
> Recent meetings have been unusually long and busy so I don't think this
> is a case of me not putting enough time towards the DMB. One indication
> that there's a queue of agenda items that need to wait is that there has
> not been a realtime meeting where we've had the time to be able to
> discuss these issues at all.
>
> > > If you want to make process changes, please fit it into the time DMB
> > > members already have allocated for DMB work. This means, for example,
> > > waiting in line against other meeting agenda items. It is not reasonable
> > > to expect more than this.
> >
> > I disagree; we have a mailing list for a reason, and we're supposed to
> > review applicants before the actual meeting so we're prepared.
>
> Right, and I do. That's why I said 60-90 minutes per meeting, not 60.
>
> > Restricting DMB contributions to *only* scheduled meetings is a
> > personal choice for each DMB member, not a rule.
>
> Sure, but it's also a measure of the approximate maximum expectation of
> time commitment from any DMB member. It's not like we're falling behind
> on average, either. The last few meetings have been unusually busy with
> applicants and that's all. I just think that you've been excessively
> impatient with these items during a busy time.
>
> Here's a guideline suggestion that may help for as long as we have
> realtime meetings: if there hasn't been time to raise an issue at a
> realtime meeting, then our capacity is approximately full and that issue
> needs to wait until this can happen.

This is your opinion, and it's absolutely fine to have differing
opinions. That's why we have a board so we can decide things, between
people with differing opinions. Different perspectives and opinions
only help to enrich the decision making process.

However it's only an opinion, not a rule. If you think it should be a
rule, I'd encourage you to propose it and carry it through the process
to make it a rule.

> This doesn't preclude email
> threads, but just by taking things into a mailing list thread doesn't
> magically create extra time that DMB members can spare over their
> existing commitment to realtime meetings.
>
> Robie