[RFC] Introduce inactive member status

[Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca]

Hello,

I'm not a voter but I have a suggestion. Make "inactive" everyone that
didn't vote for 3 months with votes and
regain the active status as soon as the member votes. Three is no need
to manually maintain a disable/enable status.

The divisor for proportions will be: number of people voting + number
of "active voters" that didn't voted yet"

My 2 cents,

---
     Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
            luizluca at gmail.com

Em qui., 21 de out. de 2021 às 08:36, Daniel Golle
<daniel at makrotopia.org> escreveu:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> as discussed in the previous developer meeting on 19th of October
> we need to find ways to improve our voting mechanics. It has became
> increasingly difficult to on-board new members as this currently
> requires a majority of all current members to be in favor of accepting
> the new member[1].
>
> As a result of that discussion I'd like to suggest an inactive member
> status:
>  * Members can voluntarily change to inavtice member status
>  * Inactive members (temporarily) give up their voting rights
>  * If an inactive member wants to get active again they can change the
>    status without a vote
>
> This would allow us to stay responsive enough and more easily reach
> an absolute majority of **active** members.
> On the other hand, project members who (temporarily or permantenly)
> have become inactive in the project would have the opportunity to
> still be listed in the wiki as members and easily regain their voting
> rights should they again become active.
>
> An other options to improve or resolve this problem would be to change
> the rules and instead of requiring an absolute majority of all members
> require only a relative majority and limit the amount of time members
> got to vote.
>
> My understanding is that both possible changes (introduction of a
> passive member status as well as changing of the voting modalities
> when it comes to new members) would require an absolute 2/3rd majority
> among the existing members.
>
> As only 9 members have participated in this months meeting, we'd like to
> hear more/other opinions on that topic and we should collect and
> formalzie all suggestions and start a vote the the most promissing
> option as soon as possible.
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
> [1]: https://openwrt.org/rules
>
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-adm mailing list
> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm