[opensuse-project] membership discussion: statement from the membership officials
Hi all, this is a statement from the membership officials to the current discussion and proposal about maintaining the opensuse membership[1]. The proposal suggests to re-evaluate each members' contributions every 2 years. We think that is not doable by us, even with great tools that gather information automatically, and would give us lots of discussions with members that lose their status. We support the proposal to set a 'passive' attribute to a member that didn't vote in the board elections for 2 periods. With the possibility to get 'active' again anytime with a simple mail to us. That 'passive' attribute would be in no way taking any perks from the member beside the voting, which he can re-gain anytime. Accompanied by that we propose to add a 'none of them' option in the board elections, so that everyone can vote, even if he does not like the candidates. The goal of all of this is that the project is able to detect if an election or vote is valid, by defining that the vote needs for example a participation of more then 60% of 'active' members. Greetings from the membership officials [1] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Members#Maintaining_your_membership -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Le 27/03/2012 13:07, Thomas Schmidt a écrit :
The goal of all of this is that the project is able to detect if an election or vote is valid,
I guess all this is valid jdd -- http://www.dodin.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/27/2012 01:07 PM, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi all, this is a statement from the membership officials to the current discussion and proposal about maintaining the opensuse membership[1].
The proposal suggests to re-evaluate each members' contributions every 2 years. We think that is not doable by us, even with great tools that gather information automatically, and would give us lots of discussions with members that lose their status.
We support the proposal to set a 'passive' attribute to a member that didn't vote in the board elections for 2 periods. With the possibility to get 'active' again anytime with a simple mail to us.
If one describes how a right is revoked than one should also describe how it is regained not just possibility=uncertainty
That 'passive' attribute would be in no way taking any perks from the member beside the voting, which he can re-gain anytime.
if that is doable by just an email as stated above why create a job to put member in passive status and another one when he/she writes an email to regain it. If 100 people are put in to a passive status and 50 of them emails one has 150 tasks to do
Accompanied by that we propose to add a 'none of them' option in the board elections, so that everyone can vote, even if he does not like the candidates.
Again one is tied to voting whatever the way the above is phrased. Choosing to vote or not to vote is a personal choice and should not be tied to the person being active or passive.
The goal of all of this is that the project is able to detect if an election or vote is valid, by defining that the vote needs for example a participation of more then 60% of 'active' members.
Never heard of an election being invalidated due to less than X percentage of than those eligible to vote. Those who vote are the basis of the calculation. Show me a democratic election where this above method as mentioned was applied. Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Togan Muftuoglu
The goal of all of this is that the project is able to detect if an election or vote is valid, by defining that the vote needs for example a participation of more then 60% of 'active' members.
Never heard of an election being invalidated due to less than X percentage of than those eligible to vote. Those who vote are the basis of the calculation. Show me a democratic election where this above method as mentioned was applied.
Requiring a quorum be present before voting is standard practice for most organizations / bodies. quorum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum If opensuse ever forms a entity, I'm sure the bylaws will require a quorum of potential voters participate for a vote to be valid. Hard to imagine it any other way. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/27/2012 04:04 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Togan Muftuoglu
wrote: The goal of all of this is that the project is able to detect if an election or vote is valid, by defining that the vote needs for example a participation of more then 60% of 'active' members.
Never heard of an election being invalidated due to less than X percentage of than those eligible to vote. Those who vote are the basis of the calculation. Show me a democratic election where this above method as mentioned was applied.
Requiring a quorum be present before voting is standard practice for most organizations / bodies.
quorum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum
If opensuse ever forms a entity, I'm sure the bylaws will require a quorum of potential voters participate for a vote to be valid. Hard to imagine it any other way.
If ever is the key word and it does not apply at the time being, hence when the time comes the founding members of such an entity can enforce such a requirement In the mean time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum#Germany "Germany In the German Bundestag at least half of the members (311 out of 622) must be present so that it is empowered to make resolutions.[16] Nevertheless, often fewer members are present. They still can make effective decisions as long as no parliamentary group or 5% of the members of the parliament are complaining about the lack of quorum." So it is not a must ;) Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Am 27.03.2012 15:53, schrieb Togan Muftuoglu:
The goal of all of this is that the project is able to detect if an election or vote is valid, by defining that the vote needs for example a participation of more then 60% of 'active' members.
Never heard of an election being invalidated due to less than X percentage of than those eligible to vote. Those who vote are the basis of the calculation. Show me a democratic election where this above method as mentioned was applied.
I had this situation in a real association (german e.V. before). There is an annual meeting and if there are not enough members visiting this meeting you cannot vote or elect on anything. Reflecting this into online based votes it's basically the same IMHO. (Not that I know if openSUSE ever will have such a rule/by-law but I understood there might be reasons for that.) Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2012-03-27 16:07, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
I had this situation in a real association (german e.V. before). There is an annual meeting and if there are not enough members visiting this meeting you cannot vote or elect on anything.
It varies on countries. In mine, Spain, they post two meeting dates, say one for 20:00 hours, and another for 20:30. If the first meeting has no quorum, the second one can proceed without quorum. The idea is that if you call a meeting a second time once the first failed, quorum is not required on the second call. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.4 x86_64 "Celadon" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9yCM0ACgkQIvFNjefEBxoOZgCfbb8zom2QsPqMpY105RyzGqFG kQkAnjYS+Q6qA6L3ry2sKP7kKHtxdBGt =n5if -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Le 27/03/2012 20:37, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
It varies on countries. In mine, Spain, they post two meeting dates, say one for 20:00 hours, and another for 20:30. If the first meeting has no quorum, the second one can proceed without quorum. same in France jdd
-- http://www.dodin.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Le mardi 27 mars 2012, à 15:53 +0200, Togan Muftuoglu a écrit :
On 03/27/2012 01:07 PM, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi all, this is a statement from the membership officials to the current discussion and proposal about maintaining the opensuse membership[1].
The proposal suggests to re-evaluate each members' contributions every 2 years. We think that is not doable by us, even with great tools that gather information automatically, and would give us lots of discussions with members that lose their status.
We support the proposal to set a 'passive' attribute to a member that didn't vote in the board elections for 2 periods. With the possibility to get 'active' again anytime with a simple mail to us.
If one describes how a right is revoked than one should also describe how it is regained not just possibility=uncertainty
That's just a wording issue here. Change "possibility" to "ability".
That 'passive' attribute would be in no way taking any perks from the member beside the voting, which he can re-gain anytime.
if that is doable by just an email as stated above why create a job to put member in passive status and another one when he/she writes an email to regain it. If 100 people are put in to a passive status and 50 of them emails one has 150 tasks to do
The "passive" attribute would be set automatically; at least, that's my understanding. And the task of moving the status of a member from passive to active would be a single click, so it's not really hard (especially compared to "check if this member has been contributing in the last two years").
Accompanied by that we propose to add a 'none of them' option in the board elections, so that everyone can vote, even if he does not like the candidates.
Again one is tied to voting whatever the way the above is phrased. Choosing to vote or not to vote is a personal choice and should not be tied to the person being active or passive.
I'd be interested if you could elaborate on why a "none of them" option is different from not voting at all, if the personal choice is to not vote. Is it a matter of wording (would a "I don't want to vote" option be better?) or is it something else? Thanks, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/28/2012 10:51 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mardi 27 mars 2012, à 15:53 +0200, Togan Muftuoglu a écrit :
elections, so that everyone can vote, even if he does not like the candidates.
Again one is tied to voting whatever the way the above is phrased. Choosing to vote or not to vote is a personal choice and should not be tied to the person being active or passive.
I'd be interested if you could elaborate on why a "none of them" option is different from not voting at all, if the personal choice is to not vote. Is it a matter of wording (would a "I don't want to vote" option be better?) or is it something else?
Let me put it this way when there is an election in a state, country or whatever a person who has the right to vote but not willing to vote needs not to go to the polls and tell the election officials that he/she is not exercising his/her voting right. So why do we want to do the uncommon here the other way that I do not understand. The actual question to be asked in my point of view is how do we go on with acquisition and retention. However the approach taken till now has been far away from these two concerns but concentrated on the detention process. I do not think this is the right way to go Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 13:07 +0200, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi all, this is a statement from the membership officials to the current discussion and proposal about maintaining the opensuse membership[1].
The proposal suggests to re-evaluate each members' contributions every 2 years. We think that is not doable by us, even with great tools that gather information automatically, and would give us lots of discussions with members that lose their status.
We support the proposal to set a 'passive' attribute to a member that didn't vote in the board elections for 2 periods. With the possibility to get 'active' again anytime with a simple mail to us.
That 'passive' attribute would be in no way taking any perks from the member beside the voting, which he can re-gain anytime. Accompanied by that we propose to add a 'none of them' option in the board elections, so that everyone can vote, even if he does not like the candidates.
The goal of all of this is that the project is able to detect if an election or vote is valid, by defining that the vote needs for example a participation of more then 60% of 'active' members.
Greetings from the membership officials
[1] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Members#Maintaining_your_membership
-- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001)
It's good to hear from the membership team about the feasibility of the process. That was something we tried to bring the point up in the previous discussions that process needs to be the domain of the membership team to decide, not the overall Project. But I'm curious on the policy aspect. In the case of our discussions, I believe we felt it would be more reasonable to determine inactive status if a person does not respond in some way (email or form or whatever) versus determination via whether a person has voted or not. Since we've used scripts to send out member emails in the past, how is it not feasible this time around and then simply inactivate the ones that don't respond? Furthermore, if we are going to use voting as the litmus test, then I would argue we would have to institute that policy "as of now" meaning past non-votes don't count. It wouldn't be fair to "penalize" someone for an action that wasn't considered a penalty before now. If that's the case, then we can't inactivate someone until 2 elections from now. Just my humble opinion. Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Project -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:25:56 -0500, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
Furthermore, if we are going to use voting as the litmus test, then I would argue we would have to institute that policy "as of now" meaning past non-votes don't count. It wouldn't be fair to "penalize" someone for an action that wasn't considered a penalty before now. If that's the case, then we can't inactivate someone until 2 elections from now.
I'd agree with that, but also that the voting process then *must* include an option to explicitly decline to vote. Otherwise, you're forcing people to vote in order to maintain their membership - even if there's nobody/nothing on the ballot that they could, in good conscience, vote for. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 21:22 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:25:56 -0500, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
Furthermore, if we are going to use voting as the litmus test, then I would argue we would have to institute that policy "as of now" meaning past non-votes don't count. It wouldn't be fair to "penalize" someone for an action that wasn't considered a penalty before now. If that's the case, then we can't inactivate someone until 2 elections from now.
I'd agree with that, but also that the voting process then *must* include an option to explicitly decline to vote. Otherwise, you're forcing people to vote in order to maintain their membership - even if there's nobody/nothing on the ballot that they could, in good conscience, vote for.
Jim
-- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
Yes, it all has to be part of this "reboot." But the main gist of what I'm pointing out is that if we are going this route, our delay is going to be about 2 years from now before we start inactivating anyone and I think that kind of defies the whole intent in the first place. Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:17:25 -0500, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
Yes, it all has to be part of this "reboot." But the main gist of what I'm pointing out is that if we are going this route, our delay is going to be about 2 years from now before we start inactivating anyone and I think that kind of defies the whole intent in the first place.
Yep, and it was pointed out to me that Thomas' post already covered that option (which I missed), and I noted as well on a re-read that he also included decoupling 'benefits' from 'membership', which I think sums it up nicely. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2012-03-28 06:50, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:17:25 -0500, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
Yes, it all has to be part of this "reboot." But the main gist of what I'm pointing out is that if we are going this route, our delay is going to be about 2 years from now before we start inactivating anyone and I think that kind of defies the whole intent in the first place.
Yep, and it was pointed out to me that Thomas' post already covered that option (which I missed), and I noted as well on a re-read that he also included decoupling 'benefits' from 'membership', which I think sums it up nicely.
Then I don't see the advantage of doing this at all. The only thing a member loses if he doesn't vote in the elections is the ability to vote on other votes. Why? Maybe he doesn't want to vote on the elections but wants to vote on other issues. Or are we counting all votes, if he doesn't participate on any vote then he can not vote? Isin't that redundant? Why count it at all, if the moment he votes on something he is reinstated by definition as "active"? A loss of time, or I haven't understood it. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.4 x86_64 "Celadon" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9yy4YACgkQIvFNjefEBxqF5gCg1+wivEa24jQkzPL/5W2qNQn7 V1gAnR2pnzCOTlaFuA3pE6gsb6FSz940 =+94Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Le mercredi 28 mars 2012, à 10:27 +0200, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
On 2012-03-28 06:50, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:17:25 -0500, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
Yes, it all has to be part of this "reboot." But the main gist of what I'm pointing out is that if we are going this route, our delay is going to be about 2 years from now before we start inactivating anyone and I think that kind of defies the whole intent in the first place.
Yep, and it was pointed out to me that Thomas' post already covered that option (which I missed), and I noted as well on a re-read that he also included decoupling 'benefits' from 'membership', which I think sums it up nicely.
Then I don't see the advantage of doing this at all. The only thing a member loses if he doesn't vote in the elections is the ability to vote on other votes. Why? Maybe he doesn't want to vote on the elections but wants to vote on other issues.
(which is why there would be an option to cover this in the vote, as stated in Thomas' mail)
Or are we counting all votes, if he doesn't participate on any vote then he can not vote? Isin't that redundant? Why count it at all, if the moment he votes on something he is reinstated by definition as "active"?
No, a non-active member doesn't become active by voting again, but by requesting his/her status to be changed. This way, we can establish a list of active members some time before a vote (say 2 weeks, as an example), which helps us know if get quorum.
A loss of time, or I haven't understood it.
It's important for us to know how many active members we have. I don't think the initial idea was to revoke rights (I could be wrong as I forgot most of the initial thread, though ;-)), but to have a more fair view of where we stand as a community. This is important. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:27:50 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Or are we counting all votes, if he doesn't participate on any vote then he can not vote? Isin't that redundant? Why count it at all, if the moment he votes on something he is reinstated by definition as "active"?
A loss of time, or I haven't understood it.
When counting votes, you need to know what percentage of the eligible voters have voted if you need a quorum of those voters for the vote to be legitimate. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Bryen, Le mardi 27 mars 2012, à 14:25 -0500, Bryen M Yunashko a écrit :
But I'm curious on the policy aspect. In the case of our discussions, I believe we felt it would be more reasonable to determine inactive status if a person does not respond in some way (email or form or whatever) versus determination via whether a person has voted or not.
Since we've used scripts to send out member emails in the past, how is it not feasible this time around and then simply inactivate the ones that don't respond?
Having the infrastructure to mail all our members is different from having the infrastructure to see who replied to mails, and to handle things nicely if there is no reply (with a second mail after 2 weeks of no-reply, etc.). We don't have that as far as I know. If someone wants to go ahead and implement this, then it could work, I guess. Just my €0.02, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Le 28/03/2012 10:59, Vincent Untz a écrit :
Having the infrastructure to mail all our members is different from having the infrastructure to see who replied to mails, and to handle things nicely if there is no reply (with a second mail after 2 weeks of no-reply, etc.).
We don't have that as far as I know. If someone wants to go ahead and implement this, then it could work, I guess.
franckly, with around of 400 members, this is not that a problem (could even be done by hand in the worst case) could simply be done subscribing them to a mailman list, with the appropriate message... jdd -- http://www.dodin.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
jdd wrote:
Le 28/03/2012 10:59, Vincent Untz a écrit :
Having the infrastructure to mail all our members is different from having the infrastructure to see who replied to mails, and to handle things nicely if there is no reply (with a second mail after 2 weeks of no-reply, etc.).
We don't have that as far as I know. If someone wants to go ahead and implement this, then it could work, I guess.
franckly, with around of 400 members, this is not that a problem (could even be done by hand in the worst case)
could simply be done subscribing them to a mailman list, with the appropriate message...
Quite probably - even without mailman, it should be easy to set up some automagic email processing. I'll be happy to help with that. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (17.5°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 27 March 2012 14:25:56 Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
It's good to hear from the membership team about the feasibility of the process. That was something we tried to bring the point up in the previous discussions that process needs to be the domain of the membership team to decide, not the overall Project.
But I'm curious on the policy aspect. In the case of our discussions, I believe we felt it would be more reasonable to determine inactive status if a person does not respond in some way (email or form or whatever) versus determination via whether a person has voted or not.
Limiting the definition of [in]activity to voting activity restricts the scope of activity to where it is actually required.
Since we've used scripts to send out member emails in the past, how is it not feasible this time around and then simply inactivate the ones that don't respond?
It's not infeasible, just that this method is integrated with an existing process so lets us get on with the fun stuff with the minimum of overhead.
Furthermore, if we are going to use voting as the litmus test, then I would argue we would have to institute that policy "as of now" meaning past non-votes don't count. It wouldn't be fair to "penalize" someone for an action that wasn't considered a penalty before now. If that's the case, then we can't inactivate someone until 2 elections from now.
It's not a penalty, just a way to recognise those who don't care about participating in votes and preventing them from skewing the result. Will -- Will Stephenson | openSUSE Board, openSUSE Boosters Team, KDE Developer SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 27 March 2012 13:07:23 Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi all, this is a statement from the membership officials to the current discussion and proposal about maintaining the opensuse membership[1].
The proposal suggests to re-evaluate each members' contributions every 2 years. We think that is not doable by us, even with great tools that gather information automatically, and would give us lots of discussions with members that lose their status.
We support the proposal to set a 'passive' attribute to a member that didn't vote in the board elections for 2 periods. With the possibility to get 'active' again anytime with a simple mail to us.
That 'passive' attribute would be in no way taking any perks from the member beside the voting, which he can re-gain anytime. Accompanied by that we propose to add a 'none of them' option in the board elections, so that everyone can vote, even if he does not like the candidates.
The goal of all of this is that the project is able to detect if an election or vote is valid, by defining that the vote needs for example a participation of more then 60% of 'active' members.
Greetings from the membership officials
[1] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Members#Maintaining_your_membership
How about we skip this whole 'inactivity thing'. We just require people to change their password once a year. Good for security, after all. If they really want, let them 'change' it into the same password - it is bad but that's the choice of the person him/herself. We're all about choice. If they don't change the password they don't log in and thus don't vote (duh) and are not counted. If they come back (for example to vote!), they just re-activate their account (get a new password) and all is well. No manual work, no loosing of any perks, no policy, no police, no kicking of anyone. But we get more clear results. Those who log in regularly but don't vote are clearly still active yet don't want to vote. Fine too. /me has had enough of this discussion
participants (12)
-
Bryen M Yunashko
-
Carlos E. R.
-
Greg Freemyer
-
jdd
-
Jim Henderson
-
Jos Poortvliet
-
Per Jessen
-
Thomas Schmidt
-
Togan Muftuoglu
-
Vincent Untz
-
Will Stephenson
-
Wolfgang Rosenauer