You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We should have some clause, and ideally fully automated mechanism, that assures that our membership rolls are with some regularity purged of inactive members.
This arose during review of the Aug/Sep 2012 bylaws change set. It's not really clear yet how to achieve the goal. Also, this may need more feedback from the membership, and so this may need to be reserved for a future change set.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
One of the reasons this has been sitting for a long time is that it's ambiguously described, and at least as written not supported by the bylaws. Specifically, it's not clear what marks a member as "inactive". and there is no stipulation anywhere in the bylaws that requires members to be "active" in some specified way to maintain their membership.
What is supported by the bylaws is that members maintain a contact email address with us at which we can reach them. There have been members whose email contacts started bouncing, and for which we have been unable to find a new contact address, and those have been moved from the membership to an alumni roll.
One candidate for actual action could be to review the bylaws for being well in support of this mechanism of removing members from the membership roll, and to propose changes if needed. For example, the bylaws are silent about what, if any effort should be made to determine a new address for a member whose email starts bouncing, and how much time needs to be allowed between initial notice of bouncing email and moving the respective member to alumni status. I.e., there's currently no process nor minimum requirements defined for this.
We should have some clause, and ideally fully automated mechanism, that assures that our membership rolls are with some regularity purged of inactive members.
This arose during review of the Aug/Sep 2012 bylaws change set. It's not really clear yet how to achieve the goal. Also, this may need more feedback from the membership, and so this may need to be reserved for a future change set.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: