use of private DMB IRC channel

[Robie Basak]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 05:15:12PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> As I assume all DMB members know, there is a private IRC channel used
> by DMB members for private discussions. This channel is not documented
> (that I know of).

Its existence is noted at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Checklist_after_a_DMB_election

Since this means that all incoming DMB members get told about it, and
existing DMB members were told when it was originally created, I'm not
sure what other documentation is required?

There's a general principle of "praise in public; criticise in private".
While this is not explicit in the Ubuntu CoC or Governance documents, I
think it's an important principle to follow as a matter of mutual
respect and dealing with others appropriately. This is particularly
important for matters relating to an individual's personal conduct,
capability, or ability.

The challenge for the DMB is that applications for upload permissions
are public. If we're handling the application for a candidate who turns
out to be unsuitable at the time, then this means that we find ourselves
having to criticise the applicant in public on exactly these points.

These two concepts are in conflict.

I do think it's important for the DMB to make its assessments public.
Ubuntu invites "anybody, from any company, to participate in any aspect
of the project"[1]. But in practice, most of the highly active Ubuntu
developers work for Canonical. We don't want to end up in a situation
where it appears that Canoncial staff get special treatment and less
scrutiny. So I think it's important that any -1 given comes with clear
reasons as much as is possible, so that that future applicants can
understand clearly what is expected and can also see that we aren't
playing favourites.

My conclusion is that while we must keep our deliberations and
conclusions as public as possible, we must try to do it sensitively. In
order to achieve this, sometimes the private channel is used during a
more challenging application so that we can figure out between ourselves
how to handle a difficult situation appropriately.

This is only possible if the private channel exists.

I do expect use of the private channel to be kept to a minimum, but I
can think of some other cases where it gets used, but I think are
absolutely fine to continue:

Sometimes a DMB member is unable to attend but wants to leave notes for
others relating to an application. This might be a question to ask with
some details on what to expect as an answer to help guide that
questioning. Or it might be an advance proxy vote, sometimes with a
condition. In both these cases, it would be less effective in some way
if the applicant were aware of the notes in advance.

During an application meeting, sometimes (rarely) we discuss what we're
asking, or the answers we're given, between ourselves, in order to guide
and coordinate our further questioning. The nature of the questioning
part of an application meeting is for us to hear what the applicant's
answer is, so of course we necessarily have to hold back our expected
answer when we ask the question. If we're unclear between ourselves, we
therefore can't use the public channel to sort out our further
questioning. Using the private channel for this kind of case makes the
application run more smoothly for everyone. But ultimately our judgement
and reasoning will be based on what was discussed publicly only, so I
don't see a problem with this.

We sometimes get exceptional confidential cases. We do have a private
mailing list. The private channel is just a more realtime equivalent.
During a difficult mailing list thread we might want to move to that. Or
is the suggestion to drop the private mailing list as well?

There's some minor admin that happens that could be done in public, but
it's just convenient for a dedicated channel for that to happen so it
doesn't get lost. Things like "sorry I'll be ten minutes late" but
stated hours before the meeting. We could create a public channel just
for this, but it doesn't seem worth it to me given that a (private)
channel exists and whether it's public or private doesn't really matter
for this kind of communication.

For these reasons I think a private channel is perfectly fine to have,
and I'd like to keep it. I can't force anyone to use it, of course. But
given that private communication is always possible and going to happen
for various reasons, I think it's preferable to have a place for that.
It is up to us to ensure that it's only used appropriately. But I think
having a dedicated place actually makes it easier to ensure this is
done. All DMB members have access to it, as opposed to a private channel
between just two members.

[1] https://ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/attachments/20220516/df81476a/attachment.sig>