On 2014-01-21 18:43, Benjamin Bergman wrote: > *** Probation period for new members, not just two week delay (other > spaces have this) > **** Should this impact privelages, ie. voting? > **** Should they be required to be at a minimum number of events? (eg. > 3 regular meetings and 3 other events) > **** Should members need to be vouched for by n number of full members > by the end of their probation period in order to be a full member? > ***** Execution could be complicated > ***** Could be combined with complaints > ***** Ian's perspectives (food for thought, perhaps need more > discussion at a future meeting) > ****** Is it in our best interest to make it harder to become a member? > ****** Are we looking for people to improve our cash flow? > ****** Are we looking to be just sustainable? More than sustainable? > Should there be a membership cap? We are the most expensive technology > group (other than AssentWorks) in the city
Did anybody volunteer to manage the *ton* of extra work that would be? :) Are we actually having an issue with bad members to bring this about, or is this just a random way to solve a non-existent problem? Our strategy has always been not to solve problems that don't exist, but maybe in my absence that's become an issue? :) Ron _______________________________________________ SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
