Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
 

Hi,

Am Friday 30 October 2009 17:30:44 schrieb Benj. Mako Hill:
> Martin Pitt has apparently recently extended the terms of Søren Hansen
> and Michael Bienia by 3 months.
>
> As folks should know by now, there's a recently executed plan to split
> developer membership out from the TB into a new developer membership
> board (DMB) and a plan to merge the DMB with the MC or work out some
> sort of other arrangement. For a reasons related to the release and
> archive restructuring, a bunch of things are still up in the air.
>
> Rather than run an election for a position that may disappear in the
> next couple months, the CC, DMB, Søren, and Michael talked about this
> and agreed to a 3 month extension of their terms on the MOTU Council to
> give everyone involved some time to make the decisions and changes that
> are necessary and figure out the process by which the MC/DMB seats will
> be filled. As soon as it's clear what needs to happen, we will run
> elections.
>
> I'm sure someone will correct me if I've managed to screw that up. :)

yep, you screwed up, at least in my eyes :P ;).

First off, such an announcement won't reach a large number of developers
unless sent to e.g. ubuntu-motu or ubuntu-devel (@l.u.c). CC'ing ubuntu-motu
and keeping the complete original text for reference.

That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of
otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail) prolonged
by the will of one developer. Maybe you can clear up what happened? Did that
happen on request of the community council? Or was it that tech board
interfered here? And if either, on what basis? Or anything else I just didn't
get?

Cheers,
Stefan.
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
 

Am Samstag, den 31.10.2009, 02:58 +0100 schrieb Stefan Potyra:
> That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of
> otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail) prolonged
> by the will of one developer. Maybe you can clear up what happened? Did that
> happen on request of the community council? Or was it that tech board
> interfered here? And if either, on what basis? Or anything else I just didn't
> get?

It was not the will of one developer (Martin merely pushed the buttons
in LP), but an unanimous decision by the TB and CC. Here's the details.

Søren and Michael were going to lose their team membership in a couple
of days, the result being that we wouldn't have had quorum in the
meeting in which we processed Jonathan's application and had a
discussion with Marc (and probably skip the next one or two meetings
too, because that's how long elections take).

We bounced the idea of elections back and forth and discussed if it
really made sense, as the Developer Membership Board is soon going to
take over developer applications completely. There is no concrete
timeline for this transition yet, so Søren and Michael said that an
extension of 3 months were the maximum they were comfortable with to
bridge the gap between now and then.

True it was a pragmatic decision, but not by one developer, but by our
top governance bodies and it was sensibly discussed with all the pros
and cons.

Hope that explains some missing details.

Have a great day,
Daniel


--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
 

Stefan Potyra [2009-10-31 2:58 +0100]:
> That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of
> otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail) prolonged
> by the will of one developer.

Well, it wasn't just that. It was discussed on th DMB list, and there
was general agreement (Mark voted +1 on the list, Colin on IRC, I
agreed as well, and there was no objection from other members).

We will talk about the MC/DMB at next Tuesday's TB meeting, but didn't
want to inhibit the current MC's function for this week.

Martin


--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
 

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:59:15 +0100 Daniel Holbach <daniel.holbach@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>Am Samstag, den 31.10.2009, 02:58 +0100 schrieb Stefan Potyra:
>> That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of
>> otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail) prolonged
>> by the will of one developer. Maybe you can clear up what happened? Did that
>> happen on request of the community council? Or was it that tech board
>> interfered here? And if either, on what basis? Or anything else I just didn't
>> get?
>
>It was not the will of one developer (Martin merely pushed the buttons
>in LP), but an unanimous decision by the TB and CC. Here's the details.
>
>Søren and Michael were going to lose their team membership in a couple
>of days, the result being that we wouldn't have had quorum in the
>meeting in which we processed Jonathan's application and had a
>discussion with Marc (and probably skip the next one or two meetings
>too, because that's how long elections take).
>
>We bounced the idea of elections back and forth and discussed if it
>really made sense, as the Developer Membership Board is soon going to
>take over developer applications completely. There is no concrete
>timeline for this transition yet, so Søren and Michael said that an
>extension of 3 months were the maximum they were comfortable with to
>bridge the gap between now and then.
>
>True it was a pragmatic decision, but not by one developer, but by our
>top governance bodies and it was sensibly discussed with all the pros
>and cons.
>
>Hope that explains some missing details.
>
>Have a great day,
> Daniel

Would you please point me to the minutes of the meetings or the archive of the discussion where this decision was taken?

Scott K

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
 

Hi Martin,

Am Saturday 31 October 2009 10:57:21 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> Stefan Potyra [2009-10-31 2:58 +0100]:
> > That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of
> > otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail)
> > prolonged by the will of one developer.
>
> Well, it wasn't just that. It was discussed on th DMB list, and there
> was general agreement (Mark voted +1 on the list, Colin on IRC, I
> agreed as well, and there was no objection from other members).

thanks for clearing that up, but I must admit that I'm now even more confused:
Daniel wrote that this was a decision of TB and CC, while you wrote that it
was done on the (private) DMB list, making me assume that it was an action of
DMB. Which board did take the decision then?

>
> We will talk about the MC/DMB at next Tuesday's TB meeting, but didn't
> want to inhibit the current MC's function for this week.

How would not taking action have inhibited the MC's function?

Cheers,
Stefan.

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
 

<quote who="Stefan Potyra" date="Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 02:58:21AM +0100">
> First off, such an announcement won't reach a large number of developers
> unless sent to e.g. ubuntu-motu or ubuntu-devel (@l.u.c). CC'ing ubuntu-motu
> and keeping the complete original text for reference.

Clearly not. I'm telling you first because that seemed prudent. We
should publicize this more widely once that's done. We can talk about
how to do that. I suppose y'all will know how to do that better within
your community than I do.

> That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership
> of otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail)
> prolonged by the will of one developer.

I think there is just confusion here.

> Maybe you can clear up what happened? Did that happen on request of
> the community council? Or was it that tech board interfered here? And
> if either, on what basis? Or anything else I just didn't get?

The whole CC and the whole DMB (which is basically the
part/representative of the TB that is relevant for this discussion) all
found unamimously in favor. We all had a little back and forth about the
amount of time we thought it would take to get things set up and decided
3 months was a good conservative time. It can take nearly that long to
get nominators, to elect someone, and get them set up on a council. It
would be kind of a waste if their council disappeared out from under
them as soon as that was done.

I'm sorry that wasn't clear. Hopefully it's cleared up now.

Later,
Mako


--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako@atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
 

Am Samstag, den 31.10.2009, 13:08 -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> Would you please point me to the minutes of the meetings or the archive of the discussion where this decision was taken?

It was discussed via email.

Have a great day,
Daniel


--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
 

Stefan Potyra wrote:

Hi Martin,

Am Saturday 31 October 2009 10:57:21 schrieb Martin Pitt:


Stefan Potyra [2009-10-31 2:58 +0100]:


That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of
otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail)
prolonged by the will of one developer.


Well, it wasn't just that. It was discussed on th DMB list, and there
was general agreement (Mark voted +1 on the list, Colin on IRC, I
agreed as well, and there was no objection from other members).



thanks for clearing that up, but I must admit that I'm now even more confused:
Daniel wrote that this was a decision of TB and CC, while you wrote that it
was done on the (private) DMB list, making me assume that it was an action of
DMB. Which board did take the decision then?




Oh for Pete's sake!



This was a simple pragmatic decision to preserve the status quo while
we move to a cleaner, better structure.



Let's not bog ourselves down in procedural pedantry. If the CC need to,
we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in
Ubuntu, and will do so.



Mark



--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
 

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:22:26 +0100 Daniel Holbach
<daniel.holbach@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>Am Samstag, den 31.10.2009, 13:08 -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
>> Would you please point me to the minutes of the meetings or the archive
of the discussion where this decision was taken?
>
>It was discussed via email.
>
Was there some need for this discussion to take place in private or do we
lack an appropriate public venue for such discussions? I'm not questioning
their right to make the decision, but my impression is that the process was
less transparent than it could have (should have) been.

Scott K

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu

Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
 

Hi Mark,

Am Monday 02 November 2009 11:00:57 schrieb Mark Shuttleworth:
> Stefan Potyra wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > Am Saturday 31 October 2009 10:57:21 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> >> Stefan Potyra [2009-10-31 2:58 +0100]:
> >>> That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership
> >>> of otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail)
> >>> prolonged by the will of one developer.
> >>
> >> Well, it wasn't just that. It was discussed on th DMB list, and there
> >> was general agreement (Mark voted +1 on the list, Colin on IRC, I
> >> agreed as well, and there was no objection from other members).
> >
> > thanks for clearing that up, but I must admit that I'm now even more
> > confused: Daniel wrote that this was a decision of TB and CC, while you
> > wrote that it was done on the (private) DMB list, making me assume that
> > it was an action of DMB. Which board did take the decision then?
>
> Oh for Pete's sake!
>
> This was a simple pragmatic decision to preserve the status quo while we
> move to a cleaner, better structure.
>
> Let's not bog ourselves down in procedural pedantry. If the CC need to,
> we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in
> Ubuntu, and will do so.

Thanks, Mark, that's at least a clear announcement, helping me better
understand how the Ubuntu government works in reality, and to what degree
government bodies value the community.

Cheers,
Stefan.
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu