[atomic-wg] Issue #363: Overhaul list of members, Quorum Rules

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
The current list of members, carried over from the Cloud SIG, is here:

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

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.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
>  
>  The current list of members, carried over from the Cloud SIG, is here:
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Atomic_WG#Working_Group_Members_and_Points...
>  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? 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
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.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
>  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
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Jason Brooks]

jasonbrooks added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
+1
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Steve Milner]

smilner added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I (ashcrow) would like to be added as a member.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Sinny Kumari]

sinnykumari added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
>  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
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Micah Abbott]

miabbott added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
>  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
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
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 5 members of the WG must unanimously approve the proposal.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Steve Milner]

smilner added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
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?
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I think the vote length needs to be inclued in the call for a vote.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``

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. 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
The above quorum rules are based on the idea of making WG membership largely
unrestricted.

The paguire idea sounds great.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
>  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 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
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 cover at least three working days (see below)
* 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.

``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
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 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.

``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
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 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Well, my thought is that, if we're going to decide something on zero notice, we'd
better be pretty sure of the decision.  
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
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.

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 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.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
LGTM
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Jason Brooks]

jasonbrooks added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
+1
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Sinny Kumari]

sinnykumari added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
+1
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Sanja Bonic]

sanja added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
+1
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Jon Disnard]

parasense added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
+1

``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[David Duncan]

davdunc added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
+1
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Sanja Bonic]

The issue: `Overhaul list of members, Quorum Rules` of project: `atomic-wg` has been
assigned to `sanja` by sanja.

https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Sanja Bonic]

The status of the issue: `Overhaul list of members, Quorum Rules` of project: `atomic-wg`
has been updated to: Closed as Fixed by sanja.

https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Giuseppe Scrivano]

gscrivano added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I'd like to be added as well (gscrivano)
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Steve Milner]

smilner added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
:thumbsup: to @gscrivano to be added. This may require a new request.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

[Sanja Bonic]

sanja added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
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.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363