<div dir="ltr">Sorry for the additional question, but is there a way for us to get to the place where we can access all the info that wasn't shown to us on the first go-around?<br><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>David Morar, PhD<div><div></div></div></div><div><a href="https://twitter.com/morar" target="_blank">@morar</a></div><div><a href="http://davidmorar.com/" target="_blank">davidmorar.com</a></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:28 AM Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC <<a href="mailto:ncsg-ec@lists.ncsg.is">ncsg-ec@lists.ncsg.is</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear NCSG EC,<br>
<br>
Now that we have discovered that a lot of the membership applications<br>
we couldn't approve because they hadn't provided enough information<br>
had actually provided the required information, but CiviCRM didn't<br>
show it, I have to ask you to go back and look at the new applications<br>
you have voted "no" on (as well as the ones you haven't voted on) and<br>
reconsider your approval/disapproval. If your answer still is "no",<br>
please provide a reason.<br>
<br>
Especially considering the ICANN mapping inventory of WS2<br>
Recommendations 2 and 6 (Good Faith and Accountability) highlighted<br>
our lack of a process of appeal when application for membership is<br>
rejected. I feel we can only deny applications for two reasons:<br>
<br>
1) the applicant doesn't satisfy the membership requirements<br>
stated in our charter<br>
2) you have (possibly confidential) information that indicates<br>
the applicant violates our rules and ethical guidelines or<br>
is not supporting our goals<br>
<br>
In the case of confidential reasons, please share them with<br>
me (confidentially and privately) by email.<br>
<br>
Could we please have all applications reviewed and updated<br>
a week from now?<br>
<br>
Julf<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------<br>
Subject: member applications<br>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 11:05:33 +0100<br>
From: Johan Helsingius <julf@Julf.com><br>
To: NCSG EC <<a href="mailto:ncsg-ec@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">ncsg-ec@lists.ncsg.is</a>><br>
<br>
Dear NCSG EC,<br>
<br>
Trying to deal with the embarrassing backlog of membership application<br>
approvals, I went through all the pending applications.<br>
<br>
Seems we have managed to approve (as in all who have commented have<br>
given a "yes") all of 6 applications for individual and 3 applications<br>
for organizational membership (well, 4 if one counts the somewhat<br>
odd-sounding "#DearGovernments Organisation". There are "no" votes<br>
on 17 organisations (because they haven't provided statement of interest<br>
and/or domain name) and 9 individuals (3 with no reason provided, 3<br>
because of not enough information, and 3 because they are not seen as<br>
non-commercial).<br>
<br>
There are 4 individual applications (including one prominent former<br>
board member) with no comments or votes, same for 2 organisations<br>
that seem to have, according to CiviCRM, applied for membership in<br>
NCUC & NPOC, but not NCSG - is that possible?<br>
<br>
There are 17 new individual and 3 organizational applications<br>
since our last EC meeting.<br>
<br>
How do we proceed? I suggest we consider the 9 with all "yes" votes<br>
and the 6 ones with no comments (and thus no "no" votes) approved.<br>
<br>
For the 17 organisations that haven't provided statement of interest<br>
or domain name, I suggest we deny the applications but ask them to<br>
resubmit, providing the needed information.<br>
<br>
For the 9 individuals that have gotten a "no" vote, I would appreciate<br>
if you could fill in a valid reason for denying the application. We can<br>
as the 3 with not enough information to resubmit with more information,<br>
but as for the 3 that are not seen as non-commercial, I would like<br>
to understand what the judgement is based on - it is of course OK to<br>
say "I have confidential inside information that I can tell in person".<br>
<br>
Hopefully this would allow us to get rid of the backlog clogging up<br>
CiviCRM and get back to a more normal situation.<br>
<br>
Comments/opinions?<br>
<br>
Julf<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-EC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-EC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-EC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec</a><br>
</blockquote></div>