On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 8:55 AM Lukasz Zemczak <lukasz.zemc...@canonical.com> wrote: > > Dan, Rafael, > > It is really unfortunate that this heated discussion has affected your > morale and faith in the DMB as a whole. I would consider it a huge > loss if any of you would have to step down from doing DMB work just > because of this, as I value all the work you have done during your DMB > cadence. All of this is really unfortunate and I'm greatly saddened by > it... especially that the new policy that Dan proposed and ratified > was to solve the problem of inactive DMB members (and I think it did) > - while now, due to this misunderstanding in the team, affects all DMB > operations. This is highly an unexpected outcome. I thought that the > policy we approved was straightforward enough not to cause problems in > 'interpretation'. > > I feel partially responsible, as maybe if I chipped in my 5-cents > earlier, during the DMB meeting, maybe it wouldn't have escalated this > much. Apologies, I got a bit too distracted with another meeting I was > attending. > > From what I see there a lot of DMB members are for simply following > the policy as is (as am I). I know this is hardly a solution (I'm only > trying to find an easy way forward), but should we maybe vote on how > we should proceed? > > Cheers, > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 14:15, Rafael David Tinoco > <rafaeldtin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think this situation is a bit unfortunate. I basically understand > > both sides of the argument and personally, as a member of the DMB, I > > wouldn't mind either way really. But since there is such a *strong* > > disagreement between the sides and I *have* to make a call, I go with > > following the explicitly defined policy. > > > > > > Just to be clear on my opinion - and it's only opinion - I have > > absolutely no problem whatsoever with directly emailing members before > > removing them, and if that had been raised during the discussion of > > the rule I would have agreed without any reservation and updated the > > wording of the rule process. However, I didn't even think to include > > such language when I proposed the rule wording, because I find it hard > > to believe that members of a team with regular meetings who do not > > participate in any way in the team activities for over 3 months, > > including public explicit discussion about removing non-participating > > team members, would be surprised about being removed from that team. > > > > > > Agreed. We have discussed the topic and agreed that we would remove > > members that were not active. Sending an e-mail might be reasonable, > > but that is not a blocker to act accordingly to what was voted and > > agreed between the DMB members. > > > > > > What I think is truly unfortunate about all this is that both these > > members are 100% aware they are not participating, they are both 100% > > aware they will be removed and replaced, and this delay and escalation > > only serves to publicly highlight their lack of participation. If we > > had simply proceeded with the call for nominations to fill their > > seats, it's very likely that few people would have even realized the > > seats were empty due to non-participation of members. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > Once all this mess is decided on, someone else on the DMB can handle > > the call for nominations and election for the empty seats. I'm going > > to step back from DMB work for a while, and let the rest of you chair > > meetings and handle action items. > > > > > > Same here. I'm also stepping back so others can assume the board. I > > confess that, nowadays, the discussions happening in DMB are tiresome. > > That is one of the reasons (among some others related to health) I > > haven't participated in the last ones. > > > > It feels to me that some members cause big discussions just so they > > can implement whatever they prefer because others don't have the time > > or the patience to argue back, while VOTING is what matters. > > > > With that, for me, if other DMB members agree, we could anticipate > > elections (from May) and solve this once for all (since now we will > > currently have 4 missing members).
Just to clarify my personal decision here - I don't particularly care what the outcome of this specific escalation is, whether the inactive member policy is followed as written or not in this specific case. The bigger problem is that a single DMB member is able to block the team from following explicitly written policies because they do not agree with the policies. That is what I would ask the TB to clarify. I think it's unfortunate that we even need to state something like that in writing, but here we are. If that bigger problem isn't addressed by the TB, I definitely have no interest further contributing to the DMB. > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > -- > Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak > Foundations Team > lukasz.zemc...@canonical.com > www.canonical.com -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
