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

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:25:24AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.

As a special exception to this, I would say that if the members of the DMB
who are currently under discussion have personally voted to approve this
policy, then their non-attendance at meetings might be interpreted as an
implicit resignation.  In that case, making an attempt to communicate with
those DMB members by email to confirm this understanding seems in order -
and easy enough to do.



> 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/e4f3776c/attachment.sig>