[RFC] Introduce inactive member status

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Oct 25 11:41:23 PDT 2021

Hi folks

Rule number 4 is pretty simple and direct about this and just need to be 
applied whenever necessary and that is not being wrong with anyone.

"If someone is unreachable for three months in a row shall get their 
commit and voting rights revoked in order to retain the ability to do 
majority votes". If someone is not able to fulfill this and at least 
abstain from a certain votes there is no problem at all, that person may 
be busy with other stuff. Whenever he/she is able to get attention back 
to the project it is always possible to give him/her the commit and vote 
rights again.

The most important thing is not to live with the inability to do 
majority votes.
Whenever there is a vote running it is not a big deal to send an email 
with Ack, Nack or Abstention and if that has not being possible for 3 
months in a row it is reasonable to revoke the persons status for the 
timebeing for the good of the project.

Best regards

On 25/10/2021 15:09, Adrian Schmutzler wrote:
> Hi,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openwrt-adm [mailto:openwrt-adm-bounces at lists.openwrt.org] On
>> Behalf Of Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 21. Oktober 2021 21:04
>> To: Daniel Golle <daniel at makrotopia.org>
>> Cc: openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
>> Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce inactive member status
>> 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.
> I think that practically this will be _more_ complicated, since somebody will have to keep track of who voted when.
> I personally prefer the original suggestion due to its simplicity. We are not dependent on frequency of votes or any other parameters there. The "inactive" members just declare themselves.
> The only problem I can think there of is technical:
> Imagine somebody raises a vote for a certain subject.
> Now person "B" states that he is inactive immediately after that.
> Will he be counted for the total number of people in the (absolute-majority) vote then?
> In my opinion, we should be very strict on the timeline in these cases, so nobody can jump in or out just for a specific vote.
> I'm not sure whether this aspect needs to be added explicitly to the rules in the end, though.
> Best
> Adrian
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> openwrt-adm mailing list
>> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-adm mailing list
> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm

More information about the openwrt-adm mailing list