| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 14/10/16 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> That's why I made my own proposal. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> class supporter |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > If you change supporter to always be a foundation member (ie make |
| 11 |
> > membership activation/removal simultaneous with instantiation) it |
| 12 |
> > could work. However, I still question the need for a 3rd tier. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> My C++ is a little rusty but if I'm reading it right, all the |
| 15 |
> 'supporter' class does is provide a container of inheritance that (a) |
| 16 |
> allows you to revoke everything when someone stops being a supporter |
| 17 |
> (or stops agreeing to the COC), and (b) allows the separation of |
| 18 |
> foundation-member from the dev and staff classes. It also seems to |
| 19 |
> allow there to be foundation members that are neither staff nor dev's. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Exactly. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So it's not a class that would be instantiated in and of itself I |
| 25 |
> don't think. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
It is an abstract virtual base class...virtual because we could well have |
| 29 |
supporters who are staff AND dev, but we'd only need to check their |
| 30 |
supporter credietnails (coc compliance etc) once. |
Archives