DMB: Proposal for a different review process

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Dustin

On 04/08/11 02:13 PM, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> This getting a little personal and pejorative.  I'll not take offense,
> but I would like to defend my name.
> 
> I've been visibly disappointed with a DMB in IRC in two meetings in
> the past two months.  In neither case, was I challenging the Board's
> decision.  Decisions are for the Board itself.  And while I don't
> consider such Boards infallible, arguing with Board decisions is not
> productive.  And if you read the logs, that's not what I did.

Someone complained about you? From what I saw you have pretty much
solidly been calm and rational when it has come to any issue so far.
Frustrated with how things are sometimes, sure, but you're always
working on solutions. I would take anything negative someone says about
you with a pinch of salt.

>  1) The lack of a sufficient quorum to render a decision
>   * http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/06/20/%23ubuntu-meeting.html
> 
>  2) A candidate being challenged as to whether his Ubuntu work was
> on-the-job (Canonical) work
>   * http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/06/20/%23ubuntu-meeting.html
> 
>  3) A candidate's work on a Canonical-sponsored upstream project
> (Orchestra, in this case) being discounted as contributions to Ubuntu;
>  admittedly the candidate himself fell into a trap question and
> clearly stated that Orchestra was not part of Ubuntu (which is
> incorrect, btw);  the Board is justified in denying a candidate based
> on such a candidate's opinion;  but the general applicability of such
> contributions toward Ubuntu membership is an important question
>   * http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-meeting.html
> 
> To (1), there's been discussion on the list about adjusting meeting
> times to improve quorum.  That would be a huge win for everyone.
> Woohoo.  \o/

Yep, timing seems to be an issue in some boards. Especially the DMB.
There have been some good suggestions for other solutions too. Such as
formalising the process where we barely have quorum, but complete the
vote by email to give a candidate a better chance. (otherwise we have
cases where one -1 can end it right there with minimal quorum in a case
where a member needs +4).

> To (2), it seems that there are both Canonical and non-Canonical
> employees who believe that Canonical employment should not bias a
> decision for or against.  It also seems many people are in agreement
> that no such bias exists.  I'm fine with that.  We've had a reasonable
> discussion on the topic now.  I'm confident in the Board's ability to
> ensure that no such bias exists.  Woohoo.  \o/

There were *plenty* of arguments about this a few months back. I got
very frustrated with it since I think it's clear that being a Canonical
employee or not should make absolutely 0 difference. We don't hold it
against someone if they work for another company and get paid for their
Ubuntu work, why should it be any different with Canonical?

In the Ask Mark session at the UDS in Budapest I asked him for a
canonical answer on the matter. He confirmed that in no way should we
weigh employment by Canonical negatively or positively. And that's how
everyone should vote. If you're not doing that, then you're not doing
your job as membership board right. Sure, if you disagree with it you
can take it up with the CC, but it's policy and as a membership board
member people should accept that they can't just make up random rules
about membership during meetings.

> To (3), the question of how upstream contributions (e.g. Debian,
> Unity, Orchestra, Ensemble) should or shouldn't be considered "Ubuntu
> contributions" has been asked, debated, and discussed.  To me, this
> one isn't resolved, and I'd like to see an opinion or even a policy
> established by an appropriate authority (DMB?  CC?  TB?).  Still, it's
> been a healthy discussion.  A very important one.  One that
> desperately needed to happen, I'm afraid.  We'll be a better community
> because of it.  Woohoo \o/

I mailed the CC about this on Tuesday and added it to the next CC
meeting agenda:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda

I have my opinions on the matter and if I disagree with them I'll take
it up through the proper channel, and whatever is agreed upon, that's
how I'll handle it in meetings even if I don't 100% agree with it.

-Jonathan