On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:37 PM Thomas Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > > Notes in-line below. > > On 3/8/22 16:53, Dan Streetman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:20 AM Mattia Rizzolo <[email protected]> wrote: > > * you say that the chair can be replaced at any time, but I propose that > such change require a supermajority (3/4th of the team) and since the > team is owned by the TB, that also needs to be accepted by them > > agreed on requiring TB approval - but I'm not sure about requiring a > supermajority of votes? > > I feel like if a majority of team members aren't happy with the chair, > then the chair probably should be replaced, no? And the TB will have > final approval to keep or allow replacement of the chair. > > I don't think we need supermajority for this. TB vote on this just needs a > simple majority at the TB level to be a change.
Just to add my clarification opinion on this - I don't think our charter should state anything about how the TB operates to provide approval (or rejection); the TB should decide how they want to do that, and our team should only care about the result. But I do agree that the TB should stick to a simple majority for decisions like this (but since I'm not on the TB or CC, my opinion is not relevant ;-) > > > * require that the team has at least a quarterly meeting (despite > currently being fortnight) > > ack, added. > > * you haven't specified *who* can apply. I recommend to require MOTUs. > > i think we should move the specific membership requirements and > process into simple team policies, don't you? there is the requirement > in the charter for the team to document membership requirements and > application process in our public docs. > > re: MOTU, i agree, but also ~sru-developers I suggest? > > MOTUs, Core Devs, SRU developers, my 2 cents. (This will be the vast > majority of people who will have tech skills to know if they can do the work > backporters needs) I set up a draft membership page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Membership to be clear, I think this page is separate from the charter and changes to it may be made in the future without any consultation with the TB. > > > * what's with the "may 1st" thing about the chair? especially if > somebody is "promoted" to chair, that would make for an awkward > situation, so what's the reason behind that? > * so you think we should vote to extend everybody's membership? That > sounds like too much work, wouldn't it? also I don't really see a > need for it. And if you think it'd be useful, then everybody should > expire the same date so that we can just hold one yearly meeting > renewing (or not) everybody at once. > > yeah all this isn't needed for our team - i was thinking more of > issues with some other teams. > > * 7.1.5 "at the chair’s discretion" - here I suppose you are referring > to the meeting chair, not the team chair, right? (which could be > different) > > yep, added the clarification. > > overall if feels more complicated than it needs to be, but effectively > it's what we've been doing, so it should be fine. > > indeed, i agree it's unfortunately far more complicated than i would > like it to be. And yes, I basically just tried to write up in painful > detail what we already do. > > The draft is updated with these changes now, can you take another look? > > > > Thomas -- ubuntu-backports mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
