Caolan, Michael,
let's work on amending the bylaws later through the BoD, shall we? 
Charles.
Last call: are we good on this?
Just on the member application process. Why not just leave it as
"
An applicant preferably should be nominated by an existing Member.
The applicant should have earned a good reputation among the existing
Community of Members, i.e, by engaging in specific, tangible activities.
"
Sound good to me, while...
"Every membership applicant must have been active for at least three (3)
months, and should make a moral commitment to at least six (6) months
activity (not counting the first three (3) months of fulfillment of
qualification)."
Adding in these specific lengths of time would exclude the possibility
of fast-tracking someone exceptional to become a member in order to lock
them into the organization fast, leaving it as "should have earned a
good reputation" grants enough flexibility to handle the case while
retaining the ability to hold back membership from someone as yet
unproven. No ?
I share Michaels concern about the "moral commitment" for another 6
months work. I intend to continue contributing, but can I guarantee out
for 6 months that I will be ? And I wouldn't like to stake my honour on
it. Why not make it less ethically judgemental and just shift that out
into the Continuity of Membership and leave a lack of activity for 6
months or so as the timeout after which membership lapses ?
C.