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