> I (loudly!) oppose treating not-yet-members as inactive: Improving
> security by minimizing activity is a luxury we cannot afford!
> Since when did we validate membership based on how they formulated
> their requests to join?
> Were you yourself treated with scrutiny when you joined, then I
> appologize on behalf of the team, and kindly ask you to not repeat that
> flawed attitude towards newcomers.
> or alternatively - if this team generally appraise such attitude, I will
> respect that by leaving the team, as I personally appreciate the *lack*
> of hierarchy in Debian.
Let's please talk about the specifics of this situation rather than appealing
to vague notions of being welcoming.
It's my experience that events like these do not generally result in long-term
maintainers. Yes, I am indeed treating them as "inactive" before they have
already joined, based on what I have seen of related events. So I propose some
reasonable checks, to ensure that we get people who are interested. I disagree
that this attitude is flawed.
I didn't propose a similar check for previous incoming contributors because
they did not have a background context of a mass-join event. So it does not
make sense to compare these two situations.
We totally do validate membership (everywhere, not just this alioth group)
based on how people formulate their requests to join. Vague requests are
generally rejected in most places, and rightly so.
Having minimum standards of quality is not "hierarchy".