Open Stack

On 10/09/2013 08:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>> Just so people aren't working off incorrect information, we do have a
>> mechanism in the bylaws to deactivate inactive members.
> 
> Ah, I missed that.
> 
> Deactivation would be for "failure to vote in at least 50% of the votes
> for Individual Members within the prior twenty-four months unless the
> person does not respond within thirty (30) days of notice of such
> termination that the person wishes to continue to be an Individual
> Member"... So if I read this correctly, someone who made himself a
> member to vote for the first elections and then disappeared would not be
> considered for deactivation.
> 
> Given how easy it is to add yourself back, I feel like those rules offer
> unnecessary protection and make those 25% targets unlikely just by
> diluting the active membership...

I'm going to agree with Thierry there. We seem to be unnaturally
protective of our deadbeat members, and not protective enough of the
real ones.

I'm NOT saying that the only real members are devs... I highly value
everybody who is, in fact, involved.

But if our gut feeling is telling us that there is no way that we get
enough turnout to even _vote_ on a motion brought to the electorate,
then I believe it's quite clear on its face that the electorate rules
are wrong.

>> Also, we do go
>> through and remove duplicate member records before each election cycle
>> starts.
> 
> Great, that part is already solved then.
>