Re: [part 2] Article 3: Membership

On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:03:36PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> Sorry to take so long to reply, but the tooth came out on Friday, and I'm
> "much better now" ;-)
That's okay. Most of my response are intended to get people to think. I
don't often expect direct replies :).

> Keeping up with "active" members is much easier than deciding whether or
> not they have met "qualification requirements" for each year they "claim"
> membership.
>
> I simple membership list ping, before meetings, would determine who was
> active and who wasn't. If they can be reached, they should still have the
> opportunity to vote.
and if they respond affermative, they still wish to be involved. I'm
ambivilent to the requirments checking.

> But if they "just disapear", so what?
I'm thinking of voting and such...

Lets say we have 1000 people on the roles but, because of people
disappearing we have only 100 active people... or 100 active people who
will vote on any given issue, anyway. Given Debian's voting rules, any
single choice would have to get 48 MORE votes than any other choice...

Otherwise the issue is unresolved.

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
=========================================================================