Sat, 02 Sep 2017 09:25:20 -0500
Sam Whited wrote:
> If electing members is mostly pointless, why is it more productive to
> only elect members who are active?
Good question. I think because they would be more accurate in electing
Council?
> but if we were to tell them that
Membership benefits include:
- Ability to join certain restricted working groups (council, editors)
- Free dinner for you and a guest at Summits
- One vote in (rare) important decisions that need to be brought before
the members
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017, at 06:48, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> This is
2017-09-02 12:44 GMT+02:00 Evgeny Khramtsov :
> I'm not a Member, so, I obviously don't vote for them, due to these
Maybe you should. It's your only chance to change something.
> And I'm actually curious to know why they are elected
Because people say yes to everything. Not
Sat, 2 Sep 2017 12:14:27 +0200
Daniel Gultsch wrote:
> Members elect Members.
> Then don't vote for them.
I'm not a Member, so, I obviously don't vote for them, due to these
rules. And I'm actually curious to know why they are elected, because in
Responsibility [1] among
2017-09-02 11:29 GMT+02:00 Evgeny Khramtsov :
> Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:01:15 +
> Could you remind me the point of being an XSF Member? To solely elect
> the Council? So Council elects Members and Members elect Council?
Members elect Members.
> Is this a list of silent
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:01:15 +
"Alexander Gnauck" wrote:
> I have setup the membership application Wiki page for the application
> period Q3 2017
>
> Applications are encouraged from developers and others who are
> actively involved in the Jabber/XMPP community. To apply,
I have setup the membership application Wiki page for the application
period Q3 2017
Applications are encouraged from developers and others who are actively
involved in the Jabber/XMPP community. To apply, create a page about
yourself on the Wiki: