DMB: Proposal for a different review process

[Nathan Handler]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Chase Douglas
<chase.douglas at canonical.com> wrote:
> True, but progress sometimes means change. I think this system would
> work better, and if proven right it could be a model for other boards to
> adopt. If it's worse, then the DMB can easily switch back. I would also
> be happy to be a guinea pig for any process changes.

It is worth noting that before the DMB, when the MOTU Council was
still processing applications, it used to handle them via the mailing
list instead of at regularly held IRC meetings. It is true that this
allowed them to review an application at any time in the month.
However, this did not really help to speed things up. Instead, the
messages frequently went without a response for quite some time. There
was also the fun period of waiting for all of the council members to
review the application. Sometimes, it was held open until all of the
council members responded. Since email (like Launchpad bugs) is not a
live/instant conversation, any questions asked by a member of the
council or a community member often added several more days to the
time needed to process the application.

Having a meeting on a set date each month helps eliminate most of
those issues. It also has a feeling of being more open to the
community (which is important, as community feedback/testimonials
about applicants is often a very valuable tool in evaluating an
application). It sounds like the issue has more to do with the fact
that quorum has not been able to be met, and not with whether or not
the IRC meetings are effective.

The idea of setting an expiration date for a bug, while it might sound
nice, is not really practical. If one council member gives the
applicant a +1 and no other members reply, you can't say that the
applicant is accepted (quorum has not been met). Nagging is also
something that often fails to work (especially after the first couple
of nags). It is also worth noting that the wiki uses Launchpad to
login. Since it also stores a revision history, it is possible to
associate a particular comment with a Launchpad account and ensure it
has not been modified.

Finally, I'd like to mention that there is nothing stopping a board
member from doing some preliminary reviewing of an application prior
to the meeting. If this is done, they can cast a vote ahead of time
(if they have no further questions). It is also possible to hold a
meeting where the present members question the applicants. Asking
questions does not require a quorum. This allows the absent members to
look over the questions and answers and then cast their vote after the
meeting (where a decision can then be sent to the ML). It is also not
unheard of for applications to be processed entirely on the ML if the
IRC meetings are not working out. If the board continues to have
trouble reaching quorum, and adjusting the meeting time does not help,
it might be worth expanding the size of the board while leaving the
number of people required for quorum the same (like what happened on a
RMB).

Nathan Handler (nhandler)