Keeping IRC meetings moving

[Lukasz Zemczak]

Hello,

Proposal sounds good to me as well. +1

Cheers,

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 13:25, Lucas Kanashiro <kanashiro at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Em 28/11/2022 17:22, Robie Basak escreveu:
> > In today's meeting, as a follow-up to limiting meetings to one
> > applicant per meeting, we talked about how we could keep meetings moving
> > along.
> >
> > A common frustration seems to be when waiting for other DMB members to
> > respond in the past, for no apparent reason. When that happens, we don't
> > know if they're preparing a long answer, have become absent, or just
> > aren't paying attention.
> >
> > We acknowleged that it's not really a problem, on occasion, to be
> > unavailable for a meeting, or to mention that someone has their
> > attention elsewhere and will be slow to respond. As long as it doesn't
> > hold up the meeting, and as long as it isn't frequent enough that we
> > struggle to make quorum.
> >
> > But just being slow to respond, especially after having gotten involved
> > in a topic, causes long delays, and there's general unhappiness about
> > this.
> >
> > We agreed we'd like to socially encourage people who aren't available to
> > not waste everyone's time.
> >
> > To try and turn this into concrete proposal, I suggest that:
> >
> > 1) We accept that it's OK for DMB members to be absent or distracted for
> > whatever reason, but not to hold up meetings because of this. Corollary:
> > if as a DMB member you are so distracted that you're holding up the
> > meeting, then maybe you should consider yourself to be actually absent,
> > and conscious to not hold the others up waiting on you.
> >
> > 2) We think that three minutes is about the *maximum* that should
> > normally be acceptable for a response from a DMB member, with the
> > majority of responses expected to be much quicker than that.
> >
> > 3) If a DMB member holds up meeting progress for more than three minutes
> > because we're waiting for a response from them, then the chair should
> > consider that person to be absent and move on. This includes voting: if
> > that means the vote wasn't quorate, then we will end the vote and
> > continue as if that person was absent anyway.
> >
> > 4) DMB members should prepare questions and comments in advance as much
> > as possible to avoid holding up meetings while they research, think and
> > type.
> >
> > 5) However, we don't want to prevent people from taking their time to
> > research, think or or type long answers when this is actually required -
> > for example in response to something that happened during the meeting
> > itself. So a DMB member can indicate that they are genuinely active in
> > the meeting but not ready to speak yet by sending "...", or a longer
> > explanation if they wish, at least once every three minutes. This can
> > include thinking time, doing research on an application, working on a
> > long answer, etc. We will take "..." to mean "I'm still here, working on
> > my next message to the channel, extending my timeout by another three
> > minutes". The meeting will normally then wait for their message before
> > moving on, subject to the chair's discretion.
> >
> > 6) For the avoidance of doubt, the above applies to DMB members only,
> > not to anyone else, and certainly not to applicants. We've not seen an
> > issue with applicants being unreasonably slow to respond, and want them
> > to give us thoughtful responses and not feel under any additional
> > pressure. They should respond as feel appropriate and as they always
> > have done.
>
> +1 for the proposal made here.
>
> --
> Lucas Kanashiro
>
>
> --
> 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
 Tools Squad Interim Engineering Manager
 lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
 www.canonical.com