TB: Urgent Escalation of DMB Member Removal / New Vote Decision due to DMB Stalemate

[Lukasz Zemczak]

Dan, Rafael,

It is really unfortunate that this heated discussion has affected your
morale and faith in the DMB as a whole. I would consider it a huge
loss if any of you would have to step down from doing DMB work just
because of this, as I value all the work you have done during your DMB
cadence. All of this is really unfortunate and I'm greatly saddened by
it... especially that the new policy that Dan proposed and ratified
was to solve the problem of inactive DMB members (and I think it did)
- while now, due to this misunderstanding in the team, affects all DMB
operations. This is highly an unexpected outcome. I thought that the
policy we approved was straightforward enough not to cause problems in
'interpretation'.

I feel partially responsible, as maybe if I chipped in my 5-cents
earlier, during the DMB meeting, maybe it wouldn't have escalated this
much. Apologies, I got a bit too distracted with another meeting I was
attending.

>From what I see there a lot of DMB members are for simply following
the policy as is (as am I). I know this is hardly a solution (I'm only
trying to find an easy way forward), but should we maybe vote on how
we should proceed?

Cheers,

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 14:15, Rafael David Tinoco
<rafaeldtinoco at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think this situation is a bit unfortunate. I basically understand
> both sides of the argument and personally, as a member of the DMB, I
> wouldn't mind either way really. But since there is such a *strong*
> disagreement between the sides and I *have* to make a call, I go with
> following the explicitly defined policy.
>
>
> Just to be clear on my opinion - and it's only opinion - I have
> absolutely no problem whatsoever with directly emailing members before
> removing them, and if that had been raised during the discussion of
> the rule I would have agreed without any reservation and updated the
> wording of the rule process. However, I didn't even think to include
> such language when I proposed the rule wording, because I find it hard
> to believe that members of a team with regular meetings who do not
> participate in any way in the team activities for over 3 months,
> including public explicit discussion about removing non-participating
> team members, would be surprised about being removed from that team.
>
>
> Agreed. We have discussed the topic and agreed that we would remove
> members that were not active. Sending an e-mail might be reasonable,
> but that is not a blocker to act accordingly to what was voted and
> agreed between the DMB members.
>
>
> What I think is truly unfortunate about all this is that both these
> members are 100% aware they are not participating, they are both 100%
> aware they will be removed and replaced, and this delay and escalation
> only serves to publicly highlight their lack of participation. If we
> had simply proceeded with the call for nominations to fill their
> seats, it's very likely that few people would have even realized the
> seats were empty due to non-participation of members.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> Once all this mess is decided on, someone else on the DMB can handle
> the call for nominations and election for the empty seats. I'm going
> to step back from DMB work for a while, and let the rest of you chair
> meetings and handle action items.
>
>
> Same here. I'm also stepping back so others can assume the board. I
> confess that, nowadays, the discussions happening in DMB are tiresome.
> That is one of the reasons (among some others related to health) I
> haven't participated in the last ones.
>
> It feels to me that some members cause big discussions just so they
> can implement whatever they prefer because others don't have the time
> or the patience to argue back, while VOTING is what matters.
>
> With that, for me, if other DMB members agree, we could anticipate
> elections (from May) and solve this once for all (since now we will
> currently have 4 missing members).
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>


-- 
Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
 Foundations Team
 lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
 www.canonical.com