DMB: proposal for minimum meeting attendance
ddstreet at canonical.com
Thu Oct 21 12:52:13 UTC 2021
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.
Specifically, these board members have not yet voted; please vote your
-1, +0, or +1:
> 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?
> > 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."
More information about the Devel-permissions