On 16 Oct 2011, at 04:37, William Drake wrote:

>> Of which 7 activated at the time of the election  
> 
> This is very helpful to know.  Why it falls to you to provide such information rather than the NPOC chair is a curiosity. 

Sorry.  I though it was something I ought to answer.  Did not mean to transgress against Amber prerogative.

>> Good luck to the soon to elected char and the new NCSG-EC in sorting this all out equitably.
> 
> It would help me to think about the meaning of "equitably" if I could find the message you'd sent previously with the corresponding numbers for NCUC, but I can't.  All I find in my saved mail is one saying 56% of the NCSG membership had become active. Do you happen to recall how many of NCUC's 86 organizational members and 118 individual members replied and are thus "active" for the purposes of the election?

Well that was about all members of NCSG.  I did not do a calculation for NCUC only.  But since only 12 members out of 258 members are not NCUC (3 are members of both), I would bet the figures for NCUC are similar to those for NCSG.  I.e in the area of 56%.

But I am not sure I understand what that has to do with equitably processing new membership applications.  I would have thought that was the result of judging the membership application fairly against objective criteria including a well understood and agreed upon definition of non-commercial.  Then it is up to the new members to be active enough to count for voting - however the new Chair and NCSG-EC decide to measure activity - should they, and the membership, decide that responding to one email in a year is too big a burden for NCSG members.

avri