Regularly Review (in)active council members

Not pointing fingers, but I think some of the council member have been less active recently, and I don't wont to give the impression when speaking about the council what we do that we have a capacity we do not have.

Check the box next to your name if you would like to remain on the Security Council:

- [x] @Carreau
- [x] @jasongrout
- [ ] @rpwagner (inactive)
- [x] @dlqqq
- [ ] @josephtlucas (inactive)
- [ ] @RRosio
- [ ] @consideRatio (inactive)
- [x] @krassowski
- [x] @Yann-P

IMHO we should reflect that, keep members with their voting right and all, but if you want to be less to not be pinged, or whether we should not wait on you for decision, maybe say so ?

Thought ?

Start with the discussion and checklist in issue #135, reviewing which council members want to remain active and how the group wants inactivity represented. Done means the council has agreed on the membership or availability status and the issue records that decision clearly.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.