<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> 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 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Rules_and_Regulations">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Rules_and_Regulations</a>) 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. Thomas Ward <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://launchpad.net/~teward">https://launchpad.net/~teward</a> Developer Membership Board Member [1]: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/02/07/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t16:13">https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/02/07/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t16:13</a> [2]: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2021-August/001726.html">https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2021-August/001726.html</a> [3]: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2021-November/001780.html">https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2021-November/001780.html</a> </body> </html>