On Friday, October 22, 2021, Dan Streetman <<a href="mailto:ddstreet@canonical.com">ddstreet@canonical.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 8:52 AM Dan Streetman <<a href="mailto:ddstreet@canonical.com">ddstreet@canonical.com</a>> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:51 PM Dan Streetman <<a href="mailto:ddstreet@canonical.com">ddstreet@canonical.com</a>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 3:44 PM Dan Streetman <<a href="mailto:ddstreet@canonical.com">ddstreet@canonical.com</a>> 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. Another follow up reminder to PLEASE VOTE. For reference, the current votes are: Dan Streetman +1 Rafael Tinoco +1 Robie Basak -1 (Thomas I didn't see a confirmation from you to my request for a formal vote, but since you did give a +1 in your email from Aug 25 I will assume that applies for your formal vote, please let me know otherwise) Thomas Ward +1 That leaves this vote at net of +2 (with a range of -1 to 5). So we need 1 more +1 to pass, or 3 more -1 to fail. Still to vote: Eric Desrochers Simon Quigley Łukasz Zemczak</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><div> </div><div>Eric, Simon, and Łukasz, PLEASE VOTE. Remember that +0 (abstain) is a valid vote, if that is your choice.</div><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> > > Specifically, these board members have not yet voted; please vote your > -1, +0, or +1: > Eric Desrochers > Robie Basak > Simon Quigley > Thomas Ward > Łukasz Zemczak > > > > > 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? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > 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." </blockquote>