DMB voting procedure

[Emmet Hikory]

Iain Lane wrote:
> The DMB appears to be unclear on the voting procedure to approve new
> developers. There are two schools of thought within the board. Thread here,
> with a link to the IRC log which might be interesting too
>
>  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2011-June/000235.html
>
> my thoughts about how it works
>
>  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2011-June/000236.html
>  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2011-June/000237.html
>
> Cody's thoughts
>
>  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2011-June/000240.html
>
> It appears this hasn't been written down (or nobody can find it). Can you
> help us to clarify how we are supposed to be voting (basically — do we
> require +4 or +1 after all board members have voted?)

    As the author of the current voting system, I feel the need to
comment and explain.  I am not greatly attached to the current
procedure: while I think it fair, expressive, and consistent, I
acknowledge there are many other voting systems with those
characteristics, and, should the TB wish to provide guidance, would be
happy to vote using any selected procedure.

    The current vote procedure assumes that the DMB is attempting to
select between the outcomes "Approved" and "Not Yet".  There is no
provision for rejection of an application.  Applicants are expected to
receive the approval of a strict majority of the total members of the
board, disregarding meeting quorums, without receiving specific
criticism from any of the members of the board.  To avoid the ability
of a single member of the board to prevent a successful application
due to specific or personal conflicts, any approvals received in
excess of the required minimum are considered to offset any
objections.

    Board Members are expected to provide one of three votes: +1:
defined as "I approve this application", 0: defined as "I do not
approve this application, but have no objections", or -1: defined as
"I object to the approval of this application".  The results are
summed arithmatically, with applicants requiring a score of 4 or
higher to be approved.  Voting may be performed at any time after the
application is submitted, but is most commonly provided during the IRC
meeting at which the applicant is interviewed.  Board members not
attending such interviews are considered to have voted "0", if they
have yet to post a vote to the internal DMB mailing list (there have
been several instances of such votes).  In the case where an applicant
does not achieve threshold during the interview, after all posted
votes have been counted (including those sent to the mailing list
prior to the application), those board members who are not known to
have participated in the interview meeting are encouraged to confirm
their votes, as the content of the interview may change their opinion.

    Explained chronologically, the process is as follows:

1) An application is submitted, and an interview is scheduled
2) The DMB reviews the application, possibly seeking further
information through discussion (via any forum) with the applicant or
others
3) DMB members not attending the interview post their votes if they
have sufficient information
4) The interview is conducted

At this point, if the application has reached threshold, the
application is approved.  If the application hsa a set of votes such
that any unrecorded votes cannot result in threshold, the application
is deferred.  If the application has a set of votes that neither
approves the application nor is certain to defer the application, the
process continues

5) DMB members not attending the interview are asked to review the log
of the interview.
6) DMB members not attending review the interview log, and may seek
further information via any forum
7) DMB members not attending post their votes after receiving
sufficient information

If at any time during the last three steps, sufficient votes are
received that the application reaches threshold, the application is
approved.

    In terms of DMB interaction, the process is as follows:

    DMB members are expected to set aside time between the submission
of the application and the scheduled interview to review the
application (this is part of why there is a mandatory one week delay
between submission of an application and earliest available interview
date).  When a DMB member does not expect to attend the interview (for
whatever reason, including not feeling like it), they are expected to
post a vote to the internal mailing list if the information available
before the interview is sufficient for them to approve or object to
the application without further discussion.  If a DMB member is
uncertain prior to the interview, they are discouraged from posting a
vote.

    Interviews are only confucted where it is potentially possible for
an application to be approved.  For example, if there are two
approvals prior to the interview, at least two board members are
expected to be present for the interview.  In practice, this often
means that interviews are conducted by a minimum of four members, but
there have been a couple occasions in the past where we have received
as many as three approvals for an application prior to the interview
(although that interview was conducted by three board members,
exceeding requirements).  Applications are never approved prior to the
interview, except by special arrangement, and a requirement for
explicit voting by all members, as this would create a race condition
between approvers and objectors.

    If the voting during the interview does not determine a final
decision, those DMB members not attending who were unable to reach
conclusion prior to the interview are expected to either confirm their
uncertainty, or indicate that they have been convinced by the
interview.  In very rare cases, a DMB member who was previously
uncertain may object to an application as a result of the interview,
although I cannot remember a case of this occuring in practice.

-- 
Emmet HIKORY