On 11/26/20 12:13 PM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Simon Lees
[11-25-20 20:08]: On 11/26/20 1:34 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Vincent Untz
[11-25-20 04:45]: Le mercredi 25 novembre 2020 à 17:24 +0800, Ariez Vachha a écrit :
So there is definitely some thinking to be done. I personally like Simon's idea but would prefer rather than a fixed number like 10 we express it as a percentage of the membership. Taking approximately 500 members then 20% = 100 and 10 = 2%. I would feel 3 to 4% would be a better indication of real support.
FWIW, I believe that anything expressed as a percentage (including the 20% rule that we already have) is broken right now as, to my knowledge, inactive members are still counted in the total members, while they will not vote. We should only consider a list of active members for such percentages.
a strict definition of "active" vs "inactive" is necessary.
The current definition of active is anyone on the membership list, in the past we have used other methods to clean up the membership list. In my opinion its probably better to address cleaning up the membership list separately as we have in the past.
[-- Error: unable to create PGP subprocess! --]
if that is the definition of active, you have absolutely no criteria for removing "inactive" members, ie: cleaning up the membership list.
"active" must be defined, not just understood.
A previous board came up with this [1] definition and process, given it is now close to 5 years since it was done last if someone can find that script or feels like writing a replacement then it is probably worth running it again in the new year. It seems like last time, which was also the first time we made around 1/3rd of members 'inactive' the active member list went from around 600 down to 400, I think we are now back around 500 but the name change vote had a significant impact on getting people who probably should have already been members to officially become members. 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. 1. https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2016-03/msg00036.html -- 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