| From: | "Darren O(dot) Benham" <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dale Scheetz <dwarf(at)polaris(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Will Lowe <harpo(at)UDel(dot)Edu>, Nils Lohner <lohner(at)typhoon(dot)icd(dot)teradyne(dot)com>, Darren Benham <gecko(at)debian(dot)org>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [part 2] Article 3: Membership |
| Date: | 1999-03-26 06:16:20 |
| Message-ID: | 19990325221620.A4727@darren.benham |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | spi-general |
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 10:39:25PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> Why should membership have a duration?
How about to just keep the rolls (or atleast the "all important"
contributing member rolls) down to people who are active? If nobody every
expired, and people just dropped out (it happens a lot) we could end up
with way too many people to satisfy any quorum...
Just a thought. I'd have to think if I actually believe it's a real
problem on an imagined one.
> Does the value of a contribution deminish over time?
of course not... but availability does. If we had a "sure fire" way to
make sure people didn't just "disappear" like happens from time to time
with Debian... either way, it'll be some amount of work for someone(s).
The expiration way is more automatable.
> Are we considering any other conditions that would "remove" a member?
Violation of the goals and such of SPI, I suppose.. but that could be
specified in the Membership Committee Charter...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wichert Akkerman | 1999-03-26 12:11:32 | Re: [DRAFT 1] Article 3: Membership |
| Previous Message | Dale Scheetz | 1999-03-26 03:39:25 | Re: [part 2] Article 3: Membership |