[NCSG-EC] member applications

[Johan Helsingius]

Thanks, David - and yes, there are duplicates. I hope we can
get rid of them once we are done with this batch.

	Julf

On 26/01/2023 02:27, David Morar wrote:
> 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 <http://davidmorar.com/>
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:05 AM Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC 
> <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto: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 <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
>