[15:59] <ddstreet> o/
[16:00] <sil2100> o/
[16:01] <ddstreet> just us today?
[16:02] <sil2100> hm, possibly, let's do a dmb-ping just-in-case. I sadly have another meeting at the same time, so I might be a bit delayed in replies
[16:03] <ddstreet> ack, i think it'll be a quick meeting, just reviewing previous action items; i dont see any applications on the agenda today
[16:03] <ddstreet> i can chair, if you have another mtg going
[16:03] <teward> *pushes sil2100 out the window*
[16:03] <teward> you owe me caffeine
[16:03] <sil2100> ahahah
[16:03] <sil2100> ddstreet: if you could plz! Next meeting I should be free
[16:03] <ddstreet> #startmeeting Ubuntu Developer Membership Board
[16:03] <meetingology> Meeting started at 16:03:55 UTC.  The chair is ddstreet.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[16:03] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[16:04] <ddstreet> i'll run thru previous actions first, as usual
[16:04] <ddstreet> #topic Previous action items
[16:04] <ddstreet> #subtopic ddstreet take vote to ML for Frank Heimes application for Ubuntu Contributing Developer
[16:04] <ddstreet> done, he was approved via ML, and I sent out the results email already and added him to the team
[16:05] <ddstreet> one note here, for contributing developer, the team to add the applicant to is https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-developer-members
[16:05] <ddstreet> however, our KB docs say to also add applicants to either ~ubuntu-dev or ~ubuntu-uploaders
[16:06] <ddstreet> but i think specifically for contributing devs, that's not right?
[16:06] <ddstreet> i only added him to ~ubuntu-developer-members, not ~ubuntu-dev nor ~ubuntu-uploaders
[16:07] <ddstreet> teward sil2100 either of you know if that was the right action? or should he get added also to -dev or -uploaders?
[16:07] <ddstreet> or rbasak if you're around ^
[16:07] <teward> off the top of my head I'm not sure, but i don't think there's a problem necessarily with not putting them in the other groups.  and we know rbasak is alive
[16:08] <ddstreet> ack, i'll assume i was right to only add him to ~ubuntu-develper-members; i'll add an action item to clarify our KB docs for that situation
[16:08] <rbasak> I don't think that's intended for contributing developers
[16:09] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet update DMB KB to clarify new contributing developers should only be added to ~ubuntu-developer-members, not to ~ubuntu-dev nor ~ubuntu-uploaders
[16:09] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet update DMB KB to clarify new contributing developers should only be added to ~ubuntu-developer-members, not to ~ubuntu-dev nor ~ubuntu-uploaders
[16:10] <ddstreet> #subtopic ddstreet update application docs and possibly DMB checklist, to make sure candidates have signed CoC before applying and before DMB approves
[16:10] <ddstreet> have not done this, i'll have to carry it over
[16:10] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet update application docs and possibly DMB checklist, to make sure candidates have signed CoC before applying and before DMB approves (carried over)
[16:10] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet update application docs and possibly DMB checklist, to make sure candidates have signed CoC before applying and before DMB approves (carried over)
[16:10] <ddstreet> #subtopic teward follow up to get all application process wiki/docs to explain the process to be able to edit wiki pages, for applicants who don't yet have wiki edit access
[16:11] <ddstreet> for reference:
[16:11] <ddstreet> #link https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2022-January/019156.html
[16:11] <ddstreet> teward carry this one over i assume?
[16:11] <teward> yep carry over
[16:11] <teward> been busy :P
[16:11] <ddstreet> #action teward follow up to get all application process wiki/docs to explain the process to be able to edit wiki pages, for applicants who don't yet have wiki edit access (carried over)
[16:11] <meetingology> ACTION: teward follow up to get all application process wiki/docs to explain the process to be able to edit wiki pages, for applicants who don't yet have wiki edit access (carried over)
[16:11] <teward> i have an informational item when you're done with the previous action items
[16:11] <teward> 'cause it's relevant
[16:12] <ddstreet> ok that's all the previous action items
[16:12] <ddstreet> go for it teward
[16:12] <ddstreet> #topic AOB
[16:13] <teward> vorlon requested that DMB add coredev to ~unity7maintainers to adjust metapackages per dependencies, migrations, etc.
[16:13] <teward> I executed that request but had to stab Simon Quigley multiple times to get him to approve it since i think all the admins on that team are otherwise dead
[16:13] <teward> simon finalized that approval today after i managed to raise him via Telegram DMs
[16:13] <rbasak> o/
[16:13] <teward> that's it for me, but i think we have a few other things to stab at today?
[16:13] <rbasak> "    At 2022-02-07 meeting, add action item to call for voting to replace 2 empty DMB chairs"
[16:14] <rbasak> I'm not sure about this bit.
[16:14] <rbasak> The other DMB seats aren't technically empty yet.
[16:14] <rbasak> https://launchpad.net/~developer-membership-board/+members
[16:14] <rbasak> I think they need to be emailed privately before being removed
[16:14] <ddstreet> yep let's move to that topic
[16:14] <teward> rbasak: i already told SImon he's at risk, but yes we should email them privately.
[16:14] <ddstreet> #subtopic At 2022-02-07 meeting, add action item to call for voting to replace 2 empty DMB chairs
[16:15] <ddstreet> rbasak teward according to the already approved rule of meeting attendance, their seats are now vacant
[16:15] <ddstreet> there is no provision in the rule for needing to email anyone
[16:16] <rbasak> In principle yes. But I think it'd be polite to give them personal notice before actually removing them. For all we know, their absence meant that they aren't even aware of that motion.
[16:16] <teward> rbasak: ummmm
[16:16] <teward> i have comments on this RE: Simon
[16:16] <teward> but i can't share them here
[16:16] <ddstreet> I'm happy to email them to let them know they have been removed from the DMB, but per the rule, we need to now hold a vote to fill the seats
[16:16] <teward> they come from the many hats i wear
[16:17] <teward> but i can affirm that Simon has been AWOL on other duties, and is *aware* the motion was passed
[16:17] <teward> and still has not fulfilled any obligations
[16:17] <rbasak> I don't agree.
[16:17] <teward> so therefore with Simon in mind specifically, he has shown no effort despite multiple notices from me privately AND on phone calls to be fulfilling his role here
[16:17] <teward> my 2 cents
[16:17] <rbasak> Until they're actually removed from https://launchpad.net/~developer-membership-board/+members, then they're still on the board.
[16:17] <ddstreet> unfortunately, the time for discussion on this point passed
[16:17] <rbasak> We might have agreed that they will be removed, but we haven't actually removed them yet.
[16:18] <ddstreet> rbasak the rule was passed; at the end of this meeting, i will remove them from the dmb team
[16:18] <rbasak> You need a TB member I think.
[16:18] <ddstreet> i'm not sure what your concern about removing them is, though?
[16:18] <rbasak> I think it's rude and disrespectful to remove them without speaking to them first.
[16:19] <rbasak> I don't think it's hard to speak to them first.
[16:19] <rbasak> Ergo we should speak to them first.
[16:19] <teward> rbasak: i wish you luck then to raise Simon
[16:19] <ddstreet> rbasak no
[16:19] <ddstreet> sorry
[16:19] <teward> my talking to him this morning was the first time in 6 weeks I've been able to reach him
[16:19] <ddstreet> rule was raised, discussed, and approved
[16:19] <rbasak> Send the email. It's not hard.
[16:19] <teward> may i suggest a middleground between you two while you take snipes at each other with opinions?
[16:20] <ddstreet> rbasak i understand you feel like that's nice to do, but we need to move on and get participating members on the DMB
[16:20] <ddstreet> go for it teward :)
[16:21] <teward> email the members.  indicate they have a week to show that they have an intention to be on the DMB.  If they don't respond in that timeframe which is a reasonable timeframe, then they are not on the upcoming election and are removed from their seat.  IF they say they continue to have an intention and cannot attend next meeting for whatever reason, they are immediately invalidated.
[16:21] <teward> this is a prerequisite however that they respond to the first email
[16:21] <teward> this gives you both room to breathe:
[16:21] <teward> (1) we'll have contacted them and
[16:21] <teward> (2) we'll have the policy as enforced within 1 week
[16:21] <rbasak> I don't follow.
[16:22] <rbasak> That's not a compromise from my position. That is effectively restating my position.
[16:22] <teward> rbasak: but with enforcement
[16:22] <teward> rbasak: it's your point but it's with ddstreet's "the policy is already made" factored in
[16:22] <teward> they forfeit their rights after that week basically for responding
[16:22] <teward> and must be reelected to retain their positions
[16:22] <rbasak> I'm not asking that they necessarily even get an option to stay. I'm saying that it's disrespectful to remove them without communicating with them first. That's all.
[16:22] <teward> fyi i'm operating on 4 hours sleep
[16:22] <ddstreet> well, let me suggest a slight alternative: we proceed with planning the election, and separately we email them to let them know they've been removed from the DMB, and let them know they are free and welcome to (re-)nominate themselves for their old positions during the upcoming election
[16:23] <rbasak> They shouldn't be removed in any public way (eg. a call for nominations) without having received private communication first.
[16:23] <ddstreet> rbasak we do everything publicly here - all discussion on this was public, this discussion right now is public
[16:23] <rbasak> That's not the same.
[16:24] <rbasak> We might have passed a motion saying that they will be removed. However we have not agreed the process for doing so.
[16:24] <teward> rbasak: may i ask why you never brought this up as a concern?
[16:24] <teward> until now.
[16:24] <ddstreet> rbasak let's compromise on this - you reach out to them in whatever way you feel is best, and i'll put an action item on the agenda for me to schedule elections for their seats
[16:24] <rbasak> It never came up.
[16:24] <rbasak> I assumed people would be reasonable.
[16:24] <rbasak> What you're saying is not reasonable.
[16:25] <ddstreet> why isn't it reasonable?
[16:25] <rbasak> An appropriate process would be: 1) Notify members that the criteria for their removal have been met; 2) Give them an opportunity to respond; 3) Remove them; 4) *Only then* begin the election process to replace their seats.
[16:25] <ddstreet> that is your OPINION on a appropriate process; that isn't the process we actually voted on and approved
[16:25] <ddstreet> again - why am i not being reasonable?
[16:26] <rbasak> Because in general it's really inappropriate for negative stuff affecting someone personally to be published widely with making sure they have a heads-up first.
[16:26] <rbasak> s/with/without/
[16:26] <ddstreet> what do you mean? you think they don't have a heads-up on this?
[16:26] <ddstreet> the rule was voted on 3 months ago
[16:27] <rbasak> What I'm asking for is hardly onerous. I don't understand the resistance. I'm not asking the outcome be changed at all. I'm just asking that we be polite and respectful about doing it by actually communicating with the people affected.
[16:27] <rbasak> They were, by definition, absent from that vote.
[16:27] <ddstreet> the resistance is *we need to get new people in those seats*
[16:27] <rbasak> Therefore they may not know. That's not a heads-up.
[16:27] <teward> rbasak: i agree in principle except I personally told Simon about this three months ago
[16:27] <ddstreet> clearly, there's a difference in our opinions that isn't going to get solved here
[16:27] <teward> so with regards to ONE of the seats we can be sure they were informed
[16:27] <rbasak> teward: OK, so if we know he knows, then I'm good there.
[16:27] <teward> so at the VERY least we can move forward with that seat
[16:27] <rbasak> What about the other seat?
[16:28] <ddstreet> what about it?
[16:28] <rbasak> ddstreet: I'm happy to agree to disagree.
[16:28] <teward> am i going to have to be a tiebreaker here? :|
[16:28] <rbasak> ddstreet: so propose a motion and I'll -1 it. That's the system.
[16:29] <ddstreet> there is no motion - the rule is clear and the action is clear as well
[16:29] <ddstreet> i'll add an action for rbasak to contact the members whose seats are now vacant
[16:29] <rbasak> https://launchpad.net/~developer-membership-board/+members defines the current DMB membership. We have agreed to remove those members because the criteria have been met, but not agreed how to do it, and they're still there.
[16:29] <rbasak> No thanks.
[16:29] <ddstreet> i'll add an action for myself to begin planning the election for their seats
[16:30] <ddstreet> rbasak you don't want to actually take this action yourself? why not?
[16:30] <rbasak> You're driving this. Please don't pass the negative work on to me.
[16:30] <ddstreet> you're trying to stop this
[16:30] <teward> *sigh* lets stop arguing and do this
[16:30] <rbasak> No, I'm asking that you communicate with them first, and then I'm in favour of continuing.
[16:30] <ddstreet> would you prefer to continue with a  DMB with multiple missing members?
[16:30] <teward> give ME an action item to contact the other seat
[16:30] <ddstreet> rbasak i understand your ASK
[16:30] <teward> give ME the action item to remove them from DMB if no reply by OEW
[16:30] <teward> EOW*
[16:30] <ddstreet> my answer is no
[16:30] <rbasak> I'm asking you to stop being rude to the existing retiring members about this.
[16:31] <ddstreet> #action teward communicate with absent DMB members
[16:31] <meetingology> ACTION: teward communicate with absent DMB members
[16:31] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet schedule new election for vacant DMB seats
[16:31] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet schedule new election for vacant DMB seats
[16:31] <rbasak> And, as long as that's your intention, I will have no further part of this.
[16:31] <ddstreet> whew ok, are we done now?
[16:31] <ddstreet> any last items?
[16:31] <teward> ddstreet: your new election is prerequisite on my handling the communciation
[16:31] <teward> that's just an FYI
[16:31] <ddstreet> teward ack i'll send a call for nominations soon, thanks
[16:32] <teward> this should settle both sides of the argument
[16:32] <teward> i'll handle the reaching out
[16:32] <rbasak> ddstreet: do you intend to wait for teward to contact the retiring members first?
[16:32] <ddstreet> rbasak no
[16:32] <teward> then you both leave me no choice on this
[16:32] <ddstreet> but it'll probably be next week before i get to it, so teward should have the rest of this week
[16:32] <teward> I vote we move this discussion to the ML
[16:32] <teward> or escalate this to the next team up in the tier for decision
[16:32] <rbasak> +1
[16:33] <ddstreet> escalate it
[16:33] <ddstreet> the DMB is broken and we need to fix it
[16:33] <rbasak> Hardly
[16:33] <ddstreet> #action teward escalate election to TB
[16:33] <meetingology> ACTION: teward escalate election to TB
[16:33] <ddstreet> ok, are we finally done now?
[16:33] <rbasak> I'm still fine with the outcome you're seeking.
[16:33] <ddstreet> #endmeeting
[16:33] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 16:33:55 UTC.  Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2022/ubuntu-meeting.2022-02-07-16.03.moin.txt
[16:33] <teward> note: DISREGARD thecall for nominations drafting action item while it's escalated
[16:33] <ddstreet> bye all! o/
[16:34] <rbasak> Your proposed method however is out of order.
[16:34] <teward> i'll still reach out to them both
[16:34] <rbasak> Thanks teward!
[16:34] <teward> rbasak: ddstreet: suggestion: both of you take a walk and cool off since i'm escalating this to the TB now
[16:34] <ddstreet> teward please make sure the TB knows this needs immediate consideration
[16:34] <ddstreet> we've waited (well over) 3 months already
[16:34] <ddstreet> thanks!
[16:34] <teward> i'll send the escalation email in a bit, right now i'm eating food
[16:35] <teward> and dealing with the monday morning chaos fires at work
[16:36] <teward> and me not starving takes priority
[16:40] <teward> rbasak: ddstreet: i need the email link for where we announced that change for removing individuals when I send this to the TB
[16:40] <teward> so i have the facts straight, one of you want to find the archive link for me?
[16:41] <ddstreet> teward check the DMB KB
[16:41] <ddstreet> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase
[16:41] <ddstreet> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Board_Member_Attendance
[16:43] <ddstreet> it's quite sad that we have to escalate this to the TB, I thought I was pedantic enough in the wording when I proposed the rule...I guess not :(
[16:45] <teward> i know one of the awol members, who's the other one?
[16:45] <teward> my brain is at 45% so i forget names sometimes
[16:46] <sil2100> Eric might also be one of them?
[16:46] <sil2100> slashd, Eric Desrochers
[16:46] <sil2100> hm, I also thought we agreed on the rule as per the wording. But I'm fine in re-discussing it (with the TB) if needed
[16:50] <ddstreet> teward the two DMB seats that are now (per our agreed on rules) empty are Eric and Simon
[16:51] <teward> sil2100: you missed your opportunity to weigh in, +2 in favor of esclataion as I suggested
[16:51] <teward> because i'd rather send it up the ladder now and get a final decision made
[16:52] <ddstreet> well, the rule wording was incredibly specific, so as far as i'm concerned they are now inactive
[16:52] <ddstreet> i'll delay calling for nominations purely out of respect for you teward :)
[16:53] <teward> ddstreet: thank you
[16:53] <teward> this being said
[16:53] <teward> ddstreet: rbasak: sil2100: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jTSP4XFPWd/ before i send it off i want to make sure i get both of your viewpoints
[16:54] <teward> i'll add the link to today's meeting as well so they can review the logs in the convo
[16:54] <teward> but i want to make sure that we're all in agreement on our sides of the story
[16:55] <ddstreet> teward that is an excellent summary, thank you!
[16:55] <rbasak> teward: thank you for writing that up.
[16:55] <teward> you're welcome to both of you, if there are no objections I"ll send this along to the TB.
[16:56] <ddstreet> no objections from me, much thanks.
[16:56] <teward> rbasak: this said, i think during a TB decision on this you will need to Abstain
[16:56] <teward> because you're in the spotlight of the disagreement
[16:56] <teward> just saying
[16:56] <teward> my 2 cents, though I don't govern the TB
[16:56] <rbasak> teward: could you please clarify my position statement? I do want to give them an opportunity to respond before we remove them (maybe "boot" is a bit harsh), but I want to make it clear that I'm not proposing that they be able to change the outcome (unless they point out some error on our part, like they actually showed up and we missed it or whatever)
[16:57] <teward> stdby i'll have another draft shortly
[16:57] <rbasak> teward: I was wondering about that. I'm not so sure. If I weren't on the DMB, I'd still have the same opinion wearing my TB hat. And it's not about me personally. It's a procedural question. Anyway, I'll think about it.
[16:57] <rbasak> teward: one more thing
[16:57] <teward> *shrugs* just my two cents
[16:57] <teward> i don't have my CC hat on for this today just my DMB hat
[16:57] <teward> the Man of Many Hats knows how to compartmentalize
[16:58] <rbasak> I don't agree that "time is of the essence". That's solely ddstreet's opinion I think. The underlying problem has existed for many years such that a previous DMB denied my proposal to do something similar  way back when.
[16:58] <rbasak> So I think that should be presented as ddstreet's opinion and not as a given.
[16:58] <teward> i'll just remove that bit then
[16:59] <teward> stdby
[17:00] <teward> > 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.
[17:00] <teward> rbasak: ^ that good?
[17:00] <teward> > 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.
[17:00] <teward> > 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
[17:00] <teward> last 3 paragraphs wording
[17:00] <teward> ('cause those changeD)
[17:00] <rbasak> That's good. Thanks!
[17:01] <teward> ddstreet: still look good?
[17:01] <teward> sil2100: any objections to the content I wrote for the escalation?
[17:01] <teward> (I have not hit "SEND" yet)
[17:01] <ddstreet> teward yep that's fine, thanks!
[17:01] <rbasak> Oh
[17:02] <rbasak> Could you please link to this IRC log?
[17:02] <teward> rbasak: i'm already doing that
[17:02] <rbasak> I thought you had
[17:02] <teward> i just am lazy and didn't post the entire updated draft
[17:02] <rbasak> But I don't see it now
[17:02] <rbasak> Ah OK.
[17:02] <rbasak> Thanks!
[17:02] <teward> rbasak: it's not in the draft it's in the latest revision that i'm lazy on sharing
[17:02] <rbasak> Got it.
[17:02] <rbasak> And thank you again for mediating!
[17:03] <teward> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/fHKQ5k59Mz/ current revision
[17:03] <teward> rbasak: well me in tired mode is either going to mediate to get the argument/drama to end
[17:03] <teward> or snap
[17:03] <teward> so :p
[17:04] <teward> it's one of Those Days.  >.>
[17:04] <teward> I did not mention I've already talked to Simon about this since the november date
[17:04] <teward> but it's not necessarily relevant to the point being argued here.
[17:04] <teward> argued/escalated
[17:05] <ddstreet> i've talked to slashd as well multiple times, but as you said - that is entirely irrelevant to this
[17:05] <teward> correct
[17:05] <teward> and I even gave Simon another heads up this morning so :p
[17:05] <teward> we know Simon's aware
[17:05] <rbasak> Looks good although the moin log link is horrible to read
[17:05] <rbasak> And will miss out this bit
[17:05] <rbasak> How about https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/02/07/%23ubuntu-meeting.html instead?
[17:05] <teward> is this channel logged independently though?
[17:06] <rbasak> Yep
[17:06] <ddstreet> our Agenda page has links to every single DMB meeting date irc logs
[17:06] <teward> https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/02/07/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t16:13 is what i'm linking to now
[17:06] <teward> sufficient?
[17:07] <ddstreet> looks good to me!
[17:07] <rbasak> +1 thanks!
[17:07] <teward> sending in a few minutes after a bio break unless there's no argument from sil2100
[17:13] <rbasak> teward: it just occurred to me that by publishing the names of the members more widely in your escalation email, that sort of goes against the idea of contacting them first just by doing that. I wonder if you'd mind removing their names? The rest of the email reads just fine without it, and I don't think it changes the sense of the email at all just to leave their names out.
[17:15] <teward> considering i'm se
[17:15] <teward> sending a contact msg to them first...
[17:15] <teward> not sure what that will provide?
[17:15] <teward> if we dont provide the namss to the TB chances are rhey will ask who we are referring to anyways
[17:15] <teward> just a thought
[17:16] <rbasak> Up to you
[17:19] <teward> i'll decide in a bit, FT job is calling me
[17:34] <teward> rbasak: i stripped the names but told the TB they could be made available if needed
[17:34] <teward> blah 'urgent escalation' in the subject bluh
[17:34] <teward> that's an old copypaste fail from my draft >.>
[17:34] <teward> oh well
[22:26] <teward> rbasak: i'm still emailing the people who're absent regardless of a TB decision, TB decision is to decide policy going forward
[22:30] <rbasak> teward: sure. I didn't think emailing them was in contention; only whether members should be removed before that's happened and they've had a chance to respond.