[Members] updated memberlist
jehan at zemarmot.net
jehan at zemarmot.net
Fri Sep 9 14:55:49 UTC 2011
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:49:02 -0600, "Matthew A. Miller"
<linuxwolf at outer-planes.net> wrote:
> 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 am not sure what should be the "solution" in this case, but I also
agree that we should not have implicit membership.
Also for these cases of users who do not reapply for membership, isn't
it (usually) because they don't want to participate in XSF activities
anymore (whatever the reason might be: they don't have enough time
lately, or they discover they are finally not interested, etc.). So if
they don't have the will to be a member, how could they have the one to
be a Council/Board member? That's the main reason why I would think the
former-member should lose Council membership. But I am not rigid on this
>> 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.
If that is the case, that's really not good. We should have a rule, but
not do things over "friendship" rules (I like him/I don't like him).
That's the minimum if we want to show any integrity in our way of
Either anyone keeps the membership until a new council get voted, or
one loses the Council membership. But we must definitely make a rule and
stick to it, whoever membership is in line.
For the Board though, as the rule says it is not mandatory to be member
in order to be in the Board, I don't see any contradiction/problem here.
Nicolas should simply lose its membership and stay in the Board for now.
> In this case, I think the point is moot, assuming Kev speaks for
> Fritzy (which I fully trust he does here) (-:
> - m&m
More information about the Members