[RFC] Introduce inactive member status

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Oct 25 11:52:11 PDT 2021

Hi David

On 25/10/2021 15:42, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 12:35 +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
>> 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].
> What is the problem we're trying to solve with the rules as they stand?
> I understand that where meetings could be held in person at a specific
> time, it makes sense to require a majority of the *electorate* instead
> of just a majority of those present. Especially for 'constitutional'
> changes, and I suppose that accepting a new voting member is one of
> those.
> That prevents a hostile takeover by declaring a meeting when *only*
> those who would vote for the takeover are present, then declaring that
> it was "by the rules".
Fully agree with both statements.
> But where votes are conducted by email with a two-week voting period,
> that's a bit less of a concern (even if it was really a practical
> concern for OpenWrt in the first place).
> Why not just switch to allowing votes based on the majority of the
> ballots in that particular vote? If we declare members "inactive"
> because they aren't voting (or don't want to be held to doing so), and
> call them "active" again when they do... just so that we don't have
> to... erm... be sad when they don't vote... isn't that overkill? Why
> don't we just *not* be sad if/when they don't vote, on a per-vote
> basis?

In my view getting a new voting member is one of the most important 
votes that can happen, almost the same as a change in the rules or a 
constitutional change. And getting a new member without the 
knowledge/consent with the electorate majority can be bad and plays 
towards an hypothetical takeover. At least if a voter abstain he/she is 
aware that whatever the vote result is he/she is fine with it.

I see no problem to declare people inactive when they don't vote or 
participate for 3 months in a row as rule 4 says. At the end it is not a 
big deal to reply to a an email with their vote during a 2 weeks period. 
Anyone becoming a voter has to know their prerogatives and duties and 
one of them is to vote, even if it is an abstention.


> Put another way — a variant on the existing proposals:
> Why not call a member "inactive" automatically for a *specific* vote,
> if they don't actually cast their ballot in *that* vote.
> _______________________________________________
> 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