IF the by-laws can be interpreted to allow for a "hiatus" until the guy or gal that is unreachable is back in due form, that would be great. i.e. He or she can be allowed to remain a tu, but does not have their non-voting participation held against them or US, because we do not include them in the total number of expected voting tu s I think we have a good basis for a nice organization. AND the quorum numbers and such needed for the voting process will be usable again without banishing people that are having some sort of problems we can only guess at.
IF the by-laws cannot or will not be interpreted this way, then I suggest we change them so that we can have inactive tu s without removing them altogether.
Something like that was the pragmatical solution I intended to go for when I asked for a constructive approach. But the more common opinion here seems to be to act according to the current by-laws instead of attempting to reform them.
In the past I had the impression that pragmatism was more important than the by-laws. But I suppose people have changed; after all some are starting to compare TU-ship with a professional job.
The bottom line for me is currently: if I'm left alone to contribute in the form I have done it over the past few months, I'd be very happy. If not, I'll -- granted, reluctantly -- take my hat and give up TU-ship.