On Aug 26, 2008, at 00:21, John Plocher wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 2008, at 00:09, John Plocher wrote:
>>> Put another way, if a collective thinks someone is a Contributer,
>>> who are we to second guess them and say they aren't?
>> Because that either
>> * sets the bar too high for each collective ("I'd like to have you
>> as a moderator of the mailing list, but if I do that I'm
>> automatically making you a voting member of the whole community
>> and really and truly you only just turned up"), or
>
> Which is why I argued so heavily for a different "roles/rights"
> architecture. Sigh.
But that's not what we have, as I recall because it was too complex.
So we need what I'm proposing.
>
>
>
>> * sets the bar too low for Plenary Member status.
>
> I don't believe that this is a real problem. In practice, if
> you are trusted enough by the community to be made a Contributer,
> and you wish to be a part of the Electorate, you should be more
> than qualified to do so.
OK, we disagree because I think that's not a reliable assumption.
Let's hear some other voices on this key issue (the meaning of
"Substantial Contribution" as it applies to Electorate Membership).
S.
