04 May 21, 07:23PM
I understand your point.
The idea is that the organization has a way to "cleanse" itself. If the committee does not have the rights to exclude members then what other body could have that authority?
You could argue that the proper body would be the community members. In this case you would need to perform a time-consuming community vote each time. So assume you want to drop 5 members who do not reply to messages for six months and/or do not pay the fee for a while - you would need to perform 5 fully blown community votes in order to be actionable and fix the situation.
You could argue that the committee does have the right to exclude but only under certain well defined conditions. In this case you would invent new rules to handle that and the governance might get bloated and bureaucratic.
If you have a pragmatic idea feel free to share it.
The idea is that the organization has a way to "cleanse" itself. If the committee does not have the rights to exclude members then what other body could have that authority?
You could argue that the proper body would be the community members. In this case you would need to perform a time-consuming community vote each time. So assume you want to drop 5 members who do not reply to messages for six months and/or do not pay the fee for a while - you would need to perform 5 fully blown community votes in order to be actionable and fix the situation.
You could argue that the committee does have the right to exclude but only under certain well defined conditions. In this case you would invent new rules to handle that and the governance might get bloated and bureaucratic.
If you have a pragmatic idea feel free to share it.