| 1 |
On 14/10/16 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> That's why I made my own proposal. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> class supporter |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If you change supporter to always be a foundation member (ie make |
| 8 |
> membership activation/removal simultaneous with instantiation) it |
| 9 |
> could work. However, I still question the need for a 3rd tier.\ |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
My C++ is a little rusty but if I'm reading it right, all the |
| 12 |
'supporter' class does is provide a container of inheritance that (a) |
| 13 |
allows you to revoke everything when someone stops being a supporter |
| 14 |
(or stops agreeing to the COC), and (b) allows the separation of |
| 15 |
foundation-member from the dev and staff classes. It also seems to |
| 16 |
allow there to be foundation members that are neither staff nor dev's. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So it's not a class that would be instantiated in and of itself I |
| 19 |
don't think. |
Archives