On 11/26/20 6:15 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le jeudi 26 novembre 2020 à 13:39 +1030, Simon Lees a écrit :
Again, if there was enough concern around this we could add a rule that every X years inactive members are asked whether they still wish to be members but this would be hard to write it would be also hard to enforce (what do you do to a board that runs out of time or forgets to do such a clean up). So in my opinion given we ended up with a process that works without needing to create a rule around it I tend to be in favor of not explicitly adding it. Again unless a significant group of the membership expressed concern that we don't have a rule covering it.
Assuming you're referring to the process that was used to trim the membership list from 600 to 400, it may be working but it's not actively used.
I'll phrase my concern again: if we have a rule saying that "20% of the membership is required for something", then it does matter a lot that we keep the list of members up-to-date: there's a huge difference between 20% of 600 and 20% of 400.
And to be clear: this is independent of the next elections, and only loosely related to the change you're proposing -- I don't intend my comment to block any of these two things. But I strongly believe this should be addressed.
Yeah for me the question is whether we address this "formally" by modifying the rules, or "informally" by running that previous process slightly more regularly. The 600 -> 400 was from the start of the project till 2016, I think once every 4-5 years is probably reasonable, otherwise we start to bug the false positives too much. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B