myriam expired from team

[Scott Kitterman]

On Sunday, May 15, 2011 03:01:34 PM Harald Sitter wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> 
wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 14, 2011 01:17:44 PM Harald Sitter wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Myriam Schweingruber
> >> 
> >> <myriam at kubuntu.org> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 07:20, Kubuntu Members <noreply at launchpad.net>
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> >> Hello Myriam Schweingruber,
> >> >> 
> >> >> Your membership in the Kubuntu Members (kubuntu-members) team has
> >> >> expired.
> >> >> <https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-members>
> >> > 
> >> > /me cries
> >> > 
> >> > That was an omission of mine, I was moving house and traveling back
> >> > and forth between Germany and Switzerland several times in the last
> >> > weeks and I simply missed these mails. Can this be reactivated,
> >> > please?
> >> 
> >> This is not sufficiently specified actually.
> >> In the past we have done re-interviewing if I am not mistaken. I
> >> personally could also imagine that a council member proposes immediate
> >> vote on this matter, given the missing specification of what to do and
> >> the reasonable explanation.
> >> 
> >> That said, if we should have to re-interview I'd like to specify the
> >> proper procedure for this in the same meeting. Maybe someone could ask
> >> how other councils handle this?
> > 
> > My understanding is that the distinction is between someone who is
> > currently active and misses the mail versus someone who has not been
> > active who wants to resume being active.  If someone is active in the
> > community, I see no reason to require an interview just because they
> > missed a mail.
> 
> Yes, but you cannot reflect this properly in a simple rule. Like if
> someone is clearly active and missed the mails and only notices past
> the 2 week grace period, then the required interview could be as short
> as simply having the council vote.
> 
> I do not think a single council member should be the judge of current
> activity though... this could cause all sorts of social problems if
> one messes up. Hence I feel that clearly defining what to do is
> necessary, so that any given point a council member can act within a
> defined range of possibilities, thus lifting the decision from one
> individual alone.

I'm not particularly worried about this.  if one council member makes a 
mistake it can be evaluated and fixed.  I'd rather not add more bureaucracy 
than we need and am happy jr fixed it.

Scott K