On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 20:07 +0200, Andrea Veri wrote:
> 2013/5/27 Germán Póo-Caamaño <gpoo gnome org>
> [...]
> Anyway, I am going to re-apply again. But it would be greatIt was not my intention to accuse anything, but to open the possibility
> if we could
> make the process less error prone.
>
> We did a lot in the past two years to avoid any kind of issues with
> the renewal process (especially after John Palmieri's case) and I'm
> really wondering how you can accuse the process to be faulty when:
to improve the process. For the tone of your email, it seems you are
upset for my email. I am sorry, it was not my intention.
> 1. we sent you an individual mail stating your membership was going toPlease, may you check the mail logs and see what was the status? As I
> expire soon.
said, I do not have it in my archives.
> 2. we sent a monthly report with your name, surname and your lastI wonder when the list is updated or, in other words, how long do you
> renewal date.
> 3. we mailed f-announce suggesting everyone to check their
> membership's status as we usually do every year. [1]
wait until you expire a member? (I guess updating the LDAP server)
Please, do not feel offended by my questions.
> I don't see any possible improvement on the way renewals are managedShouldn't I report it then?
> now and luckily this is really the first case someone reports a
> problem with it since the time we introduced the monthly report +
> individual mails.
I see 3 potential ways:
1. Sort the list of people by name or last name
2. Sent the renewal email with CC to membership-committee. I could
not find it in the membership-committee list archives. So, you
can cross-check the emails were sent and there will a public record
to check later (and narrow the search).
3. Once the membership expires (i.e. removed the status), notify them
as well (individually and to the foundation list).
Until now, I had wrongly assumed that expired membership were
automatically made emeritus. So, if I was not there, I was also ok.
Stupid assumption, but I am sure I am not the only one. IMVHO, that
makes (3) valuable.