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 great
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:
It was not my intention to accuse anything, but to open the possibility 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 to expire soon.
Please, may you check the mail logs and see what was the status? As I said, I do not have it in my archives.
2. we sent a monthly report with your name, surname and your last renewal date. 3. we mailed f-announce suggesting everyone to check their membership's status as we usually do every year. [1]
I wonder when the list is updated or, in other words, how long do you 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 managed 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.
Shouldn't I report it then? 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. Regards, -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part