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

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for your summary of the issue.

When I look at this matter, the first question I have is a different
governance one:  why does the DMB believe that it has the authority to pass
its own policies removing members from the DMB?  I see that the DMB has for
some time been running its own elections, which seems fine as this is
effectively an administrative thing; but I don't think members of the DMB
have the authority to remove other members of the DMB, even for inactivity,
who have been elected by the Ubuntu Developers at large.

I certainly think it would be improper for the TB to pass such a policy for
itself, as well.

So I think any such policy for removal of inactive DMB members needs to be
ratified by the TB (as the body which delegated the DMB) or, if you want to
skip-level, the CC.


On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 12:34:07PM -0500, Thomas Ward wrote:
> Technical Board:
> 
> During the Developer Membership Board meeting today[1], there was an action
> item / discussion item regarding the removal of two DMB members who have
> been inactive for an extended period of time. Unfortunately, there was an
> increased amount of argument and disagreement by members in attendance over
> how to execute this policy.

> In August of 2021, the DMB proposed [2] and then in November approved [3] a
> requirement for DMB members 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. 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.

> (see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Rules_and_Regulations)

> There are currently two individuals on the DMB who are in violation of this
> policy decided upon over 3 months ago; the specific names can be provided
> upon request privately for the TB's knowledge if the information is required
> or pertinent.

> Both of these members have not been present for at least 6 consecutive
> meetings and as such are in violation of the agreed upon policy that was
> passed in November.

> During the DMB meeting today (Feb. 7, 2022), a major disagreement came up
> between Dan Streetman and Robie Basak, over the fact that, "While we have
> decided upon this policy, we never discussed *how* we would do this."  As
> such, a massive point of contention rose today in the meeting.

> Dan Streetman has proposed removing the members who meet this criterion
> immediately and begin the process of drafting elections for two new members
> to replace the individuals who are now in violation of this policy.

> Robie Basak is against any action until both aforementioned individuals have
> had a chance to respond before we remove them. He is also of the position
> that any response from the absent members would not necessarily affect any
> decision on their removal, however Robie is of the opinion that all
> individuals must be contacted first and must have a chance to respond before
> we simply remove any absent members.

> Unfortunately, the DMB could not come to agreement on this, and have
> requested to escalate this to the Technical Board for determination of how
> we should address this, and help to determine the proper procedure in this
> case.

> I would request that the TB make a decision as to how the DMB should
> proceed, or if the TB chooses to not handle this, escalate to the proper
> group to handle this decision.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20220208/18962d67/attachment.sig>