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
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Rules_and_Regulations)
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
https://launchpad.net/~teward
Developer Membership Board Member
[1]: https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/02/07/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t16:13
[2]:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2021-August/001726.html
[3]:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2021-November/001780.html
--
technical-board mailing list
technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
