On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 17:50 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
ways, please focus on the topic at hand, avoid rants, and be kind.
Proposal: ======= At a time 4 month' prior to a member's even number year anniversary (that would be year 2, 4, 6...) attempts will be made to contact the member via the known e-mail address. Initial contact attempts will be automated to reduce work for the membership committee.
The automated e-mail will contain a link to a web page that enables the member to check areas of contributions to the project. Submission of the form results in automatic membership "renewal" until the next even number anniversary of the member.
Some clarification requested here. As part of the previous discussion centered around what to do about "no-longer-contributing" members, does this part of the proposal indicate that contribution, or non-contribution since initial membership is not a factor for renewal?
No, contribution is the "renewal". One has to contribute to become a member in the first place, why would we not expect the same level of effort from the person to be a member?
The text of your proposal states: "Submission of the form results in automatic membership "renewal" until the next even number anniversary of the member." If submission of renewal form results in automatic renewal then that implies that verification of continued contribution is bypassed. That is what I was seeking clarification on.
It is all about contribution, that's in the end why we have a contribution criteria to become a member in the first place.
And that is not clearly emphasized in the wording of this proposal. I may be getting into semantics here, but the automated renewal section does imply no continued contribution is necessary.
Let me propose this change in wording from:
"...a member of the membership committee will make an attempt to contact the member..."
to:
"...a member of the membership committee may make an attempt to contact the member..."
Well, but his was exactly one of the points, even pointed out by you, in the first go around. People being afraid that we might "loose" someone because automated e-mails get ignore/filtered/whatever, or e-mail addresses may have changed.....
Yes I did. :-) And I still stand by that point. But I also don't feel strongly about making it a requirement to be imposed upon the membership committee, but a "hoped-for" attitude that they (along with the rest of the community) will consciously engage in an effort to keep our community in existence and growing. It's the wording I was concerned with, not the intention. I am only asking for a single word change "will" to "may." :-)
The "resuming contributions" lends the question I posed earlier about criteria for renewal. I think we have thus a confusing point here that needs clarification. As I read this overall proposal, it states that if you are presently a member and wish to renew it, no proof of contribution is required.
No, the proposal states that to "renew" you go to a web page and mark off the areas where you contribute.
Ok so somehow I missed this part. If I read this clearly now, if someone were to check off some boxes (truthfully or not) and then click submit, their membership would be automatically renewed. In other words, we renew on an honor system. I guess I could be okay with that. Does this same automated process exist for the honorary members?
Based on your comments I am not sure we are looking at the same text ;)
No worries. We'll get there eventually. All part of the deliberation process when looking at wordings of a proposal. :-)
Later, Robert
-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org