Fwd: Expiry of 4 DMB members on the 12th of May - election needed?

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 06:12:48PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:22 PM Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> > On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 03:41:59PM -0400, Thomas Ward wrote:
> > > The Developer Membership Board members (myself included) expire from the DMB
> > > in under six days - is an election required for new DMB members, or will the
> > > TB simply extend our current expirations until an election can be held?

> > Thanks Thomas for raising this.

> > We need to run another election. We can arrange the details at our next
> > DMB meeting I guess. From the TB end, I assume it's fine for the DMB
> > just to go ahead and run their own election again unless there is any
> > objection?

> > In the meantime, I (acting for the TB) can just extend the current
> > DMB memberships for as has been done in the past - unless there is any
> > objection?

> Well, maybe it's just me, but it seems like there is at least an
> appearance of conflict of interest, as you're on both the TB and DMB?

> So I guess that yes, I do object to both questions, and I also suggest
> that someone from the TB who isn't also on the DMB should handle both
> of these questions - both deciding if it's appropriate to extend the
> expired DMB member's terms (and performing the action) as well as
> actually executing the DMB election. I certainly don't feel it is
> appropriate for a DMB candidate to also be the administrator of the
> election.

> I also should point out that if the TB wants to continue to 'own' the
> DMB membership, the TB might want to add something to its calendar so
> the next election happens in a timely manner? Or, alternately, the TB
> might want to simply delegate membership decisions to the DMB itself,
> and then the DMB might want to have some kind of 'administrator' who
> would be responsible for (and keep track of) these kind of
> administrative issues.

In the past the DMB elections have, as far back as I can remember, been run
by the DMB themselves.  As a TB member I have no objections to this
continuing to be the case.

When discussing conflicts of interest, the appearance of impropriety is of
course just as important as the action, in order to preserve trust in
institutions.  In the context of Ubuntu, the TB, and the DMB, I think the
risk here is minimal.  We are a small community of developers who have all
signed on to a Code of Conduct, and assumptions of good faith are deeply
necessary for what we do.  The political stakes of a DMB election are also
not particularly high; what would be the point of a sitting member of the
DMB, one of the few people who have signed up to do this important work,
using their influence over the election process to change the outcome of
that election?

As a practical matter, I have never run a CIVS election before, and I don't
think it's appropriate for the work of the DMB to block on me figuring it
out.  Let's not get bogged down in politics over what is fundamentally an
administrative matter.

If the TB should vote to formally delegate DMB elections to be
self-administered to have a formal record, I'm fine with that (but again,
this should not hold up the current election cycle).

I have gone ahead and extended the expiration of the DMB members in
Launchpad, since that part is easy for any member of the TB to do.

-- 
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/20220516/c81cbf6b/attachment.sig>