Team charter

[Dan Streetman]

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:20 AM Mattia Rizzolo <mapreri at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:34:56PM -0500, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > I have a draft of my proposed team charter here
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Charter
>
> Great, thank you!
>
> > Any feedback is welcome, on this list and/or at the team mtg next week.
>
> Few comments:
> * you talk about votes all over, but I think it's important to specify
>   somewhere that you are expecting a "simple majority vote" or so (which
>   is what 7.1.11 means, effectively)

ack, I added a line to the 'executive summary' section to state this
in plain language.

> * you say that the chair can be replaced at any time, but I propose that
>   such change require a supermajority (3/4th of the team) and since the
>   team is owned by the TB, that also needs to be accepted by them

agreed on requiring TB approval - but I'm not sure about requiring a
supermajority of votes?

I feel like if a majority of team members aren't happy with the chair,
then the chair probably should be replaced, no? And the TB will have
final approval to keep or allow replacement of the chair.

> * require that the team has at least a quarterly meeting (despite
>   currently being fortnight)

ack, added.

> * you haven't specified *who* can apply.  I recommend to require MOTUs.

i think we should move the specific membership requirements and
process into simple team policies, don't you? there is the requirement
in the charter for the team to document membership requirements and
application process in our public docs.

re: MOTU, i agree, but also ~sru-developers I suggest?

> * what's with the "may 1st" thing about the chair?  especially if
>   somebody is "promoted" to chair, that would make for an awkward
>   situation, so what's the reason behind that?
> * so you think we should vote to extend everybody's membership?  That
>   sounds like too much work, wouldn't it?  also I don't really see a
>   need for it.  And if you think it'd be useful, then everybody should
>   expire the same date so that we can just hold one yearly meeting
>   renewing (or not) everybody at once.

yeah all this isn't needed for our team - i was thinking more of
issues with some other teams.

> * 7.1.5 "at the chair’s discretion" - here I suppose you are referring
>   to the meeting chair, not the team chair, right?  (which could be
>   different)

yep, added the clarification.

>
>
> overall if feels more complicated than it needs to be, but effectively
> it's what we've been doing, so it should be fine.

indeed, i agree it's unfortunately far more complicated than i would
like it to be. And yes, I basically just tried to write up in painful
detail what we already do.

The draft is updated with these changes now, can you take another look?

>
>
> --
> regards,
>                         Mattia Rizzolo
>
> GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
> More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
> Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
> Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-
> --
> ubuntu-backports mailing list
> ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports