New member process performance and issues (Fwd: SPI Member application for Filipus Klutiero)

Filipus Klutiero chealer at
Sun Jul 31 22:54:02 UTC 2016

Hi Jonathan,

On 2016-07-17 15:46, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:31:23AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> On 2015-06-28, I applied for SPI membership. I did not obtain any followup
>> until 2016-02-03, when I received the forwarded mail.
>> After such a delay, my interest in SPI was low. I thought that was a big
>> incident, and felt comforted to think that the processing time for my
>> application was not representative. I thought my application would now be
>> processed swiftly.
>> Yesterday, my application, managed by Martin Zobel-Helas, was finally
>> processed, and I was invited to vote in the 2016 board election, which
>> revived my interest in SPI and prompted me to visit its discussion forums.
>> To my surprise, I could not find any mention of the issue discovered in
>> February, even checking on spi-general (although there are a couple of mails
>> titled "New members website / inactive contributing member cleanup", which,
>> while they apparently do not treat this issue, seem related). This is why I
>> am hereby forwarding the mail I received in February, even though I have no
>> idea how many applications were affected.
> I sent out these mails; there were fewer than 10 affected - I don't have
> the exact numbers to hand, but it was a sufficiently low number that I
> felt contacting those affected directly was sufficient. Additionally in
> my work on the replacement members site I've had a very low amount of
> feedback to anything I've posted to the lists, so I haven't felt it was
> worth my while pointing out the inadequacies of the old system which are
> now rectified.

Thank you

>> I rarely apply for membership in a software project, but it was
>> unprecedented for me to apply to an opaque process like the SPI's without
>> being requested to do so. I wanted to send a mail to report my experience,
>> but I now realize that SPI actually has statistics about the process's
>> performance on
>> These statistics follow:
>> NC Applicants Pending Email Approval 	a
>> NC Members 	b
>> Contrib Membership Applications 	c
>> Contrib Members 	d
>> Application Managers 	11
>> I do not precisely understand what each of these metrics means, but this
>> would certainly be most relevant for those wondering whether they should
>> apply for membership.
> a = those who have applied, but failed to confirm their email address by
>      clicking on the link in the initial email sent on sign up. If you
>      are in this state and login it should be clear your address is not
>      verified.
> b = Non-contributing members. Those who've completed email verification
>      but either not applied to or not completed the contrib membership
>      process.
> c = Applications for contributing membership that are still in progress.
>      All of these members will be included in "b".
> d = Members who have completed the contributing membership process and are
>      permitted to be subscribed to -private and vote.
> Application Managers are those who are capable of handling applications
> sitting in "c". Most of them are inactive.

Thank you

>> Unfortunately, this page is not accessible when not logged in. Could
>> this be intentional?
> All of the membership system other than signup requires a login; it is
> trivial to obtain this so perhaps there's an argument to open up the
> stats to non-authenticated logins but I've never seen a request for it.

I did that in thread "Issue #1 - Allow public access to membership statistics":

Filipus Klutiero

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Spi-general mailing list