Thank you Thomas for stepping in to mediate in the meeting and for your time in writing this up.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 12:34:07PM -0500, Thomas Ward wrote:
> 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.
Wearing my DMB hat:
I'm simply saying that it's inappropriate and disrespectful for someone
to find out that they've been removed from the board by reading a call
for nominations for their (now vacated) seat, or from an automated email
from Launchpad. Therefore we must contact them privately first. This is
particularly important in this case since it's their very absence that
triggered this action, so they're more likely to be unaware of it.
I didn't think that the DMB's (passed) motion ("...shall be considered
inactive and removed from membership in the DMB") meant that this would
happen with no other contact with them. I had assumed that a requirement
to do this respectfully was implied. And procedurally, the DMB can't do
anything that violates the CoC anyway, so *if* you agree that removing
them without further contact is not the respectful thing to do, then how
the DMB's passed motion is to be interpreted is moot. So I think the
only question that needs to be answered here is: "what is a respectful
way to proceed?"
I don't think contacting them is hard; nor that giving them time to
respond (say a week) makes any difference in the grand scheme of
progress[1]. It's simply the respectful thing to do. So I'm surprised
that Dan pushed back so hard on this that it had to be escalated. I do
appreciate his impatience, since DMB absenteeism has been a practical
problem for many years. But I don't think that excuses our duty to treat
everyone well, especially members who aren't being paid to support their
activities in Ubuntu. It turned out that they weren't able to contribute
the time. We should be grateful and thankful for what they could
contribute, not treat them badly now.
To be clear, I am in general in favour of the principle of having
absentee DMB members be required to step aside. It is just the
disrespectful manner it is proposed to be done that I am objecting to.
Wearing my TB hat:
I was asked if I was going to recuse myself and abstain from any TB
decision. I'm not sure that makes sense here. This isn't about me. I'm
involved only because I object procedurally. I don't stand to benefit,
nor have any friends or associates benefit, from any TB decision. Were I
not also on the DMB, I'd still object to Dan's proposed course of action
wearing my TB hat only. So for now I am not recusing myself, and
obviously I am in favour of my own position. However if anyone wants to
argue that I should not participate further, I will consider that
argument carefully.
Robie
[1] I say that they should be given the opportunity to respond because
1) people make mistakes; and 2) there may be a valid procedural
objection they wish to make. This gives an opportunity for that to be
considered, and corrected if necessary, before damage to personal
reputations is done. It is not my intention to extend an invitation for
them to remain on the board despite their previous absence; that time
has already passed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
