Peter Tribble wrote: > Instead of a single membership committee, you're saying that every group > should have its own membership management infrastructure.
How else would you determine whether someone has substantively contributed to your group unless your group was involved in making that decision? And I don't mean infrastructure is duplicated - I expect AlanB to whip up a snazzy web page for managing contributer and member status, and to set things up so that all the people on the membership committee all have access to it. When John Doe comes to you and asks to be granted contributer status in a group you facilitate, I expect that you will look at your group's membership policy and ask John Doe whether he has met those requirements. If he can demonstrate he has, then you would go to that special web form, enter his name, check on the "make this person a Contributer" box, and then click Submit. Done. Continuing to design-on-the-fly, when John decides he wants to become a voting Member, he simply goes to his OS.o profile page where, because he is a Contributer, there is a "I want to become a Voting Member" button, which he clicks. Again, Done. No bureaucracy, no central overhead, just local communities managing their own business. -John
