#363 Overhaul list of members, Quorum Rules
Closed: Fixed 2 years ago Opened 2 years ago by jberkus.

The current list of members, carried over from the Cloud SIG, is here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Atomic_WG#Working_Group_Members_and_Points_of_Contact

Things we need to change:

  1. Who should we remove? Are jsmith and nzwulfin active anymore?
  2. Who needs to be added? Jlebon? ashcrow?

QUORUM ISSUE:

We currently list meeting quorum as 51% of all members. With our open membership, though, that means that we need at least 11 people at a Fedora Atomic meeting to make decisions. We need to either lower that threshold (I suggest six) or we need to restrict membership in the WG.


Metadata Update from @jberkus:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

2 years ago

The current list of members, carried over from the Cloud SIG, is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Atomic_WG#Working_Group_Members_and_Points_of_Contact
Things we need to change:

Who should we remove? Are jsmith and nzwulfin active anymore?

I would say we can probably remove jsmith, nzwulfin, rtnpro. We could also ask kushal and roshi if they still want to be WG members. Of course everyone is always welcome to join the meetings and participate without being a WG member.

Who needs to be added? Jlebon? ashcrow?

I'm +1 to that but we'd need to confirm with them they would like to be members.

QUORUM ISSUE:
We currently list meeting quorum as 51% of all members. With our open membership, though, that means that we need at least 11 people at a Fedora Atomic meeting to make decisions. We need to either lower that threshold (I suggest six) or we need to restrict membership in the WG.

So you're saying we either need to limit who is a member, or we make it so that a lower percentage of people can constitute as quorum?

Either or, yes.

My preference would be to make quorum:

"A quorum is 51% of WG members, or 5 members, whichever is lower."

I think we can regularly count on 5 members.

Either or, yes.
My preference would be to make quorum:
"A quorum is 51% of WG members, or 5 members, whichever is lower."
I think we can regularly count on 5 members.

+1 from me

I (ashcrow) would like to be added as a member.

Either or, yes.
My preference would be to make quorum:
"A quorum is 51% of WG members, or 5 members, whichever is lower."
I think we can regularly count on 5 members.

+1

Either or, yes.
My preference would be to make quorum:
"A quorum is 51% of WG members, or 5 members, whichever is lower."
I think we can regularly count on 5 members.

+1

OK, revised:

For Regularly Scheduled Meetings:

  • A quorum for the meeting is 5 people, or 51% of the members of the WG, which ever is lower. Voting items must pass with a majority of the members voting at the meeting.

For Ad-Hoc Email Votes:

  • The vote must take place on the current official Fedora Atomic mailing list.
  • A quorum for the vote is 7 people, or 51% of the members of the WG, whichever is lower.
  • The email vote must allow at least three working days for members to respond.
  • A majority of votes is required to pass.

For Ad-Hoc IRC Votes:

  • This kind of vote is only for minor matters and urgent issues.
  • The vote must take place on an official IRC channel for Fedora Atomic.
  • At least 4 members of the WG must unanimously approve the proposal.

I like it. The only nit I have is "at least 3 days". Is the vote length noted at the start of any email votes (IE: This will run for 5 days) or does it go until it gets enough votes/falls off the radar?

I think the vote length needs to be inclued in the call for a vote.

Also, note the "three working days".

A few comments:

  • A quorum for the meeting is 5 people, or 51% of the members of the WG, which ever is lower
    • :thumbsup: - my only question is how many people should we make official WG members
  • Ad-Hoc Email Votes & Ad-Hoc IRC notes
    • I actually vote that we nix this idea and just require all votes to happen in pagure. We can send an email to draw attention to pagure. OR if doing an IRC vote (time critical) we still create a pagure issue and relevant members still +1 in the ticket. This will leave a clear trail and is a pretty clear policy.

The above quorum rules are based on the idea of making WG membership largely unrestricted.

The paguire idea sounds great.

The above quorum rules are based on the idea of making WG membership largely unrestricted.

I'm ok with that I think but would prefer for there to be some process (ideally automated) that looks at metrics from meetings and such and removes people from membership after a period of inactivity. i.e. some objective way to make the list not grow forever.

The other thing I'd like to do is make it so that not so many people have 'admin' access to this repo. I was thinking it would be WG members, but if it's going to be largely unrestricted I think we should just go with two or three people as admins.

The paguire idea sounds great.

+1

So, revised quorum rules:

For Regularly Scheduled Meetings:

  • A quorum for the meeting is 5 people, or 51% of the members of the WG, which ever is lower. Voting items must pass with a majority of the members voting at the meeting.

For Ad-Hoc Votes:

  • All ad-hoc votes will be held via pagure issues in the atomic_wg repo.
  • Ad-hoc votes must be announced on the current primary mailing list for Fedora Atomic (atomic-devel).
  • Ad-Hoc votes must be open for at least three working days (see below) after the announcement.
  • At least 5 people must vote, or 51% of the WG membership, whichever is less.
  • Votes are "+1" (in favor), "-1" (against), or +0 (abstain).
  • Votes pass by a simple majority of those voting.

Working days: non-holiday weekdays. Relevant holidays are the national holidays of the USA, Western Europe, and India.

So, revision #5 of quorum rules:

For Regularly Scheduled Meetings:

  • A quorum for the meeting is 5 people, or 51% of the members of the WG, which ever is lower. Voting items must pass with a majority of the members voting at the meeting.

For General Ad-Hoc Votes:

  • All ad-hoc votes will be held via pagure issues in the atomic_wg repo.
  • Ad-hoc votes must be announced on the current primary mailing list for Fedora Atomic (atomic-devel).
  • Ad-Hoc votes must be open for at least three working days (see below) after the announcement
  • At least 5 people must vote, or 51% of the WG membership, whichever is less.
  • Votes are "+1" (in favor), "-1" (against), or +0 (abstain).
  • Votes pass by a simple majority of those voting.

For Urgent Ad-Hoc Votes:

  • All ad-hoc votes will be held via pagure issues in the atomic_wg repo.
  • Ad-hoc votes must be announced on the current primary mailing list for Fedora Atomic (atomic-devel).
  • Ad-Hoc votes must be open for at least three hours after the announcement
  • At least 5 people must vote, or 51% of the WG membership, whichever is less.
  • Votes are "+1" (in favor), "-1" (against), or +0 (abstain).
  • Votes pass by a 2/3 majority of those voting (round up).

Working days: non-holiday weekdays. Relevant holidays are the national holidays of the USA, Western Europe, and India.

seems ok. going from simple majority to 2/3 of those voting does make it a bit more complicated, but I'm ok with that

Well, my thought is that, if we're going to decide something on zero notice, we'd better be pretty sure of the decision. My first thought was requiring consensus, but that seemed likely to delay an already urgent decision.

Membership Proposal:

  • Members of the Fedora Atomic WG are listed at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Atomic_WG
  • Members may be added or removed from this list at any regularly scheduled Fedora Atomic WG meeting with quorum.
  • When members are added or removed, the WG will give a reason for the addition or removal. Valid types of reasons are listed below.
  • Candidates must be registered with fedoraproject.org before becoming WG members.

Reasons to add a member:

  • Participation in one or more Fedora Atomic WG meetings, FADs, or other activities.
  • Contributions to one or more Fedora Atomic WG related projects.
  • Self-nomination at a Fedora Atomic WG meeting.

Reasons to remove a Member:

  • Failure to participate in Fedora Atomic WG meetings/activities/projects for more than 3 months.
  • Violation of the Fedora Code of Conduct.
  • Request to be removed.

All reasons above are merely guidelines, and the WG will take specific circumstances into account.

Metadata Update from @sanja:
- Issue assigned to sanja

2 years ago

Metadata Update from @sanja:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

I'd like to be added as well (gscrivano)

:thumbsup: to @gscrivano to be added. This may require a new request.

Sorry, Giuseppe, forgot to revisit logs from last meeting.

Added now - please @smilner and @gscrivano, check if your Fedora username is correct and tell me if you want to change the display name to nickname/real name.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata