[Members] updated memberlist

[Matthew A. Miller]

On Sep 9, 2011, at 06:46, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:

> 
> On Sep 9, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Florian Zeitz wrote:
>> 
>> As much as I like to have Fritzy in the council I disagree.
>> There have been many complaints lately about members failing to perform
>> their duties (voting in that case). I think reapplying is one of them if
>> you want to retain your membership.
> 
> And having auto-membership introduces other problems.
> 
> Assume a person re-running doesn't reapply because they assume it comes with council membership.   But then they don't get voted in.  So now they are neither on council or have a general membership.  One can argue that simply too bad for them.
> 
> I argue that having implied membership (or overloaded votes) is really a bad thing.  Membership should only be established (and maintained) by direct vote.   For this reason, I oppose a by-law change to grant membership other than direct vote.
> 

I also agree that implicit membership is a bad idea.

> I suggest that the council membership be changed to require membership to run for the office.
> 

The bylaws already require that a council member must be an XSF member.

> If a sitting council or current membership thinks it really bad to have a council member with an expired membership, they can take other action to remove the council remember.  So I don't see any need for auto-removal on membership expiration.  I have no problem whatsoever with Fritz serving out his term.
> 

I seem to recall a similar situation happened before, and that person was no longer a council member after their lapse in membership.  Maybe we didn't like or respect that person as much as Fritzy.

In this case, I think the point is moot, assuming Kev speaks for Fritzy (which I fully trust he does here) (-:


- m&m
<http://goo.gl/voEzk>