* Jim Henderson <hendersj@gmail.com> [02-18-12 20:05]:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:50:02 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Jim Henderson <hendersj@gmail.com> [02-18-12 13:45]:
I think, though, that in order to effectively define inactivity (which is what you seem to be saying this discussion is about), activity has to be defined pretty clearly. Otherwise we're talking about the absence of something that's not well defined.
<about *voting*>
yes, and voting should be an indication of *activity* but not be defined as a *requirement* of activity.
no, I'm not hung up on voting but there are those vocally against and it *should* not be a *requirement*, and I agree.
I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about what defines a "member".
Yes you are and I am. Defining a "member" status to be more precise and that must not be that the member votes. He has that privilege but it is not a *requirement* of him retaining his status as a "member", ie: he does not have to vote and not voting does not deprive him of his status as a member. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org