[IAEP] [SLOBS] SL member list/joining criterion

[Walter Bender]

It was never made clear, at least to me, the purpose of purging the members
list. It seems that if people want to be removed, we should have an
unsubscribe mechanism, but otherwise, what is the harm in keeping them on
the list? (Our membership list has never been well-correlated with the
active contributors in any case.)

-walter

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Folks..
>
> Sorry my replies have been sort of off and on lately. Still having issues
> with Ed's pacemaker. Hopefully it will be all good soon. He is healing
> nicely but still has occasional dizzy spells.
>
> About the membership list…  Adam will recall the problems we were having
> with the list back in late Jamuary as he was with me at SCaLE when it was
> all happening.
>
> Sebastian had done a lot of work on the list, sending out a survey via
> Lime Survey to determine who wanted to remain on the list.  There was just
> one problem… several long time contributors did not, for some reason,
> reply. They said they did not receive the survey (went to Spam?).
> Sebastian assumed that no reply meant they no longer wanted to be members.
> For many, this was not the case.
>
> As the election progressed (over the course of about a week) several
> members who had not replied notified me that they did not receive the
> survey and did, in fact, want to remain on the membership list and to vote.
> I sent ballots to all who had been on the list and asked for ballots.
>
> Now is a good time to re-visit the membership list and find out who wants
> to be removed. I suggest that this time, rather than removing anyone who
> doesn't reply in the affirmative, we remove only those who specifically ask
> to be removed.
>
> As I am sort of swamped with personal issues right now, perhaps Sebastian
> or Samson (or someone else) would like to do a sweep of the list removing
> those who ask to be taken off. An email to all on the mailing lists should
> work as a notification that they need to ask to be removed. I think Samson
> has been able to add all the recent new members to the list.
>
> Caryl
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > From: dave at lab6.com
> > Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:39:38 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [IAEP] SL member list/joining criterion
> > To: holt at laptop.org
> > CC: cbigenho at hotmail.com; sebastian at fuentelibre.org;
> samsongoddy at hotmail.com; iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org;
> slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org
>
> >
> > Hi Adam
> >
> > On 12 May 2016 at 15:33, Adam Holt <holt at laptop.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> 1. A section of the doc is available live here,
> > >> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members/List
> > >>
> > >> 2. That doc shows 279 members
> > >>
> > >> I've requested access to the doc :) Thanks Samson!
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm NOT questioning Dave Crosslands' personal ethics (although many
> question
> > > his employer's ethics privately)
> >
> > I'm contractually bound to clarify this: Google is a client of my
> > employer, a UK company of which I am one of the directors, and I'm not
> > an employee of Google, and nothing I do should be construed as
> > representing Google or any of the company's other clients (BBC, etc.)
> >
> > > however more generally there's a very
> > > serious institutional/fiduciary problem here, if SL members'
> non-publishable
> > > personal data is being shared with someone who is not a member of Sugar
> > > Labs, as Dave Crossland recently stated he is still not a member of SL?
> > > That may have changed in recent weeks, but again we have no way of
> knowing,
> > > which is the core issue :)
> >
> > I am now a Member, as you can see at the end of the list of members in
> > the link I provided :)
> >
> > > FWIW many serious organizations wait years before providing this level
> of
> > > access (database of all their members) for profound reasons of
> > > conflict-of-interest, and accidental-or-worse-intentional abuse of
> personal
> > > data.
> >
> > Those organizations' data is probably more substantial, though. Eg, a
> > database of all Mossack Fonseca's clients is rather different to the
> > database of volunteers for a free software project (which is already
> > public given the public nature of the services rendered voluntarily in
> > public bug trackers, mailing lists, etc.)
> >
> > --
> > Cheers
> > Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLOBs mailing list
> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160514/b494e057/attachment.html>