No discussion on a mechanism that has the potential to prevent future tension?
This makes me sad :( On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:29:34 Torrie Fischer wrote: > I'd like to discuss the possibility of an additional class of members based > on the success I've seen of using it at Noisebridge. Right now, we've got > just one class of members called Members. Some time ago, they introduced a > second group called Associate Members. The procedure for becoming an > associate member is pretty simple: > > https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Membership#Associate_Members > > Essentially, you create a User wiki page, find four sponsors (who are other > associate members or regular members), then add a category tag to your page. > Associate members can't participate in governance or need to pay dues, but > it does give a sense of belonging and establishes a network of trust > between active community participants who have not become full members and > full members. We're a lot more than just a tiny handful of maybe a dozen > active contributors! > > I think we can differ from NB's implementation by requiring that least one > of the four sponsors must be a full Member. > > Since I'm not a fan of using the wiki to maintain any kind of membership > records, I'd like to implement something like that in spiff as an > implementation of the next milestone of a plugin architecture. > > Feedback, please! > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
