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

[Adam Holt]

In any case, with about 4 months having have passed since January's
election, can the Sugar Labs' legal board of directors please now get
access to the verified-current-membership list of eligible voters that was
used in this election, that Samson Goddy indicates is at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit
?

FWIW / for the record
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members#Currency_assurance_policy
currently states "The most recent currency review was in January 2016" and
"once a year members will be asked to confirm that they still wish to be a
Sugar Labs Member. If this request bounces, or if a request has not been
replied to after it has been a) resent, b) checked for a more current email
address, and c) six months have passed, the member will be sent a removal
notice with an invitation to reapply."

Of course the Board is free to amend the definition of Membership at any
time, but the above is the status quo.

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On 14 May 2016 at 23:13, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2016 10:26 PM, "Walter Bender" <walter.bender at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 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.)
>>>
>>> The harm is two fold. Initially that the list says it is a list of
>>> active contributors, so having it not be that is problematic because it is
>>> confusing: we either ought to redefine it accurately, or prune it. On a
>>> deeper level it means referenda are a mirage, since it is impossible to get
>>> replies from people completely disengaged, and it means that SL appears to
>>> be a large and complex entity when it is not.
>>>
>> Valid points. But I guess I am not sure how we manage the pruning
>> process. Some people come and go based on their availability. I can think
>> of several people -- cjl and sean for example -- who have been quite active
>> of late after a hiatus of 12+ months. I want to make sure we don't cut off
>> our nose to spite our face.
>>
>
> Would you be happy for the members table to have a col for "last year of
> active membership" which can be self-adjusted but it set based on when they
> last got in contact to affirm membership?
>
> Then we wouldn't drop anyone from the table, but we could sort dormant
> members to the bottom, or color their row in the table differently, etc;
> and we could adjust the bylaws to say that only members active in the
> current year are needed for referenda.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> --
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160514/68c866ad/attachment-0001.html>