On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Adam Holt <h...@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 <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On 14 May 2016 at 23:13, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2016 10:26 PM, "Walter Bender" <walter.ben...@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 ! >> >
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep