Anthony DiPierro wrote:
In terms of Wikimedia, I'd like to see membership as an extremely open thing. But at the same time, I don't want to see it so open as to being "members of all Wikimedia projects", as Delphine describes it.
Extremely open membership is a great ideal, but it can make it difficult to know just who your members are at any given time. It is also difficult to establish any kind of continuity in policy when attendance at meeting is highly random.
One potential problem is that Wikimedia is way too big to have voting for every single member. For this reason and also so that it remains "no big deal" like adminship was supposed to be, I'd be strongly opposed to voting. Rather, there should be a clear standard for identification and activity and anyone who meets this can apply. Once a member you remain a member as long as you remain active and aren't kicked out.
I don't think that I would go so far as to characterize these positions as "no big deal". The kind of disputes that arise over the naming of admministrators suggest that that slogan is not consistent with what happens. Inactive members should be subject to automatic suspension in the absence of maintaining a minimal level of activity, but their reinstatement would be just as automatic when they once again meet that standard.
The activity rules would be project specific, and should be met on a regular basis in order to continue membership. I'd like to see the activity rules be somewhat tough, just editing a few times a year shouldn't cut it. But participation in offline activities would also be taken into consideration. For example if you show up to stuff envelopes you're definitely considered active for that quarter. Eventually there should probably be a committee which decides on the activity rules.
That's acceptable.
Ec