[NCSG-EC] member applications

[David Morar]

Sorry for the delay on this. I generally agree with the proposed idea on
the consensus ones. My portal is showing several George Sadowsky
applications, not sure if that's the same for all. I'm going through and
making sure my NOs are not without comments, and voting on all new members,
as well.
Thank you very much,
Have a great day,
David

David Morar, PhD
@morar <https://twitter.com/morar>
davidmorar.com


On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:05 AM Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Dear NCSG EC,
>
> Trying to deal with the embarrassing backlog of membership application
> approvals, I went through all the pending applications.
>
> Seems we have managed to approve (as in all who have commented have
> given a "yes") all of 6 applications for individual and 3 applications
> for organizational membership (well, 4 if one counts the somewhat
> odd-sounding "#DearGovernments Organisation". There are "no" votes
> on 17 organisations (because they haven't provided statement of interest
> and/or domain name) and 9 individuals (3 with no reason provided, 3
> because of not enough information, and 3 because they are not seen as
> non-commercial).
>
> There are 4 individual applications (including one prominent former
> board member) with no comments or votes, same for 2 organisations
> that seem to have, according to CiviCRM, applied for membership in
> NCUC & NPOC, but not NCSG - is that possible?
>
> There are 17 new individual and 3 organizational applications
> since our last EC meeting.
>
> How do we proceed? I suggest we consider the 9 with all "yes" votes
> and the 6 ones with no comments (and thus no "no" votes) approved.
>
> For the 17 organisations that haven't provided statement of interest
> or domain name, I suggest we deny the applications but ask them to
> resubmit, providing the needed information.
>
> For the 9 individuals that have gotten a "no" vote, I would appreciate
> if you could fill in a valid reason for denying the application. We can
> as the 3 with not enough information to resubmit with more information,
> but as for the 3 that are not seen as non-commercial, I would like
> to understand what the judgement is based on - it is of course OK to
> say "I have confidential inside information that I can tell in person".
>
> Hopefully this would allow us to get rid of the backlog clogging up
> CiviCRM and get back to a more normal situation.
>
> Comments/opinions?
>
>         Julf
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20230125/16c59c8b/attachment.htm>