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