DMB: proposal for adjustment to quorum rule

[Lukasz Zemczak]

Thank you for starting the poll and sorry to only reply to this now.

I think we'll decide on something from the proposed solutions for
sure. There's one somewhat related problem I'd like to discuss while
at it. Apologies if this feels like hijacking the thread. Since we're
now talking about the quorum required to start reviewing an
application at a DMB meeting, right? Meaning, because we sometimes had
to postpone applicants due to missing DMB members on the meeting, we
want to make the situation better for people not having to be
postponed into infinity. And for this it makes sense.

But a similar related problem is what if we have quorum, but then
during the meeting the vote is on hold, because of still depending on
the votes of DMB members not present (with their votes potentially
having the chance of changing the outcome). This might feel the same
situation, but I think it needs to be handled separately. Right now
what we do is move to the ML and request votes from others until a
result is reached that cannot be overturned anymore. But the problem
is that this can take a while. We could think of adjusting some of the
propositions for this purpose, although I don't feel that any of them
is particularly good for this situation.

I think we'd need to adjust our voting rules and, for such a hanging
vote situation, simply set a time limit for non-present DMB members -
let's say "till the next DMB meeting", to cast their vote either via
e-mail or on the next DMB meeting itself, and if a member does not act
on time, his vote will default to +0. What do you think?

Cheers,

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 14:46, Dan Streetman <ddstreet at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:28 PM Dan Streetman <ddstreet at canonical.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 9:42 AM Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 05:46:52PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > > > > D: A unanimous vote of members present is required.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is really a separate discussion, if applications need a
> > > > unanimous vote or not. Against this as a solution to this problem, but
> > > > I'm not necessarily against it as a separate motion.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I worded this one badly. Let me try again:
> > >
> > > D2: if an absolute majority is not possible because the number of voters
> > > required are not present at a meeting, then a unanimous vote of members
> > > who are present is sufficient to pass a motion that grants upload access
> > > to an applicant.
> >
> > ah ok, thanks.
> >
> > Since we're coming up to the holiday season, and meeting attendance
> > probably will be too sparse to vote on the proposals, I'd like to
> > suggest we vote on this proposal (and my previous proposal) over
> > email, as well as finishing any further discussion that's needed.
> >
> > For this proposal, since we have multiple options, should we set up a
> > condorcet vote? That may help the DMB members to proceed to voting.
>
> I've set up a poll to vote on these options, and sent a private email
> to board members. I tried to reduce the poll options down to the
> shortest accurate description of each option, and there is also 'needs
> more discussion' if anyone thinks we do need to continue discussing
> this. Please try to vote before the next scheduled board meeting on
> Nov 1.
>
> --
> 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