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

[Adam Holt]

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Adam Holt <holt at laptop.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

Of course redefining SL Membership is not a decision that should be taken
lightly (when/if that happens) as this will have very direct consequences
e.g. ~51% of SL Members can impeach a Board member according to
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance#Oversight_Board, and
75% of SL Members can overturn a Board decision according to
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance#Sugar_Labs_Referenda
(etc!)


> 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 !
>>
>> --
>> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160515/9614dae8/attachment.html>