On Sunday, May 15, 2011 03:01:34 PM Harald Sitter wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Saturday, May 14, 2011 01:17:44 PM Harald Sitter wrote: > >> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Myriam Schweingruber > >> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 07:20, Kubuntu Members <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > >> >> Hello Myriam Schweingruber, > >> >> > >> >> Your membership in the Kubuntu Members (kubuntu-members) team has > >> >> expired. > >> >> <https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-members> > >> > > >> > /me cries > >> > > >> > That was an omission of mine, I was moving house and traveling back > >> > and forth between Germany and Switzerland several times in the last > >> > weeks and I simply missed these mails. Can this be reactivated, > >> > please? > >> > >> This is not sufficiently specified actually. > >> In the past we have done re-interviewing if I am not mistaken. I > >> personally could also imagine that a council member proposes immediate > >> vote on this matter, given the missing specification of what to do and > >> the reasonable explanation. > >> > >> That said, if we should have to re-interview I'd like to specify the > >> proper procedure for this in the same meeting. Maybe someone could ask > >> how other councils handle this? > > > > My understanding is that the distinction is between someone who is > > currently active and misses the mail versus someone who has not been > > active who wants to resume being active. If someone is active in the > > community, I see no reason to require an interview just because they > > missed a mail. > > Yes, but you cannot reflect this properly in a simple rule. Like if > someone is clearly active and missed the mails and only notices past > the 2 week grace period, then the required interview could be as short > as simply having the council vote. > > I do not think a single council member should be the judge of current > activity though... this could cause all sorts of social problems if > one messes up. Hence I feel that clearly defining what to do is > necessary, so that any given point a council member can act within a > defined range of possibilities, thus lifting the decision from one > individual alone.
I'm not particularly worried about this. if one council member makes a mistake it can be evaluated and fixed. I'd rather not add more bureaucracy than we need and am happy jr fixed it. Scott K -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
