I think the point @tqcharm wants to make, reduced to reproducible logic, is that you add a second criteria for eligibility of voting that includes some and excludes others. With your reasoning, we have effectively two criteria, and if a user fulfills any of the two, they are allowed to vote:
- You have CLA + permanent member of a FAS group
- (Join SIG considers your contributions worthy) AND (you know about this possibility) AND (you either able to reach out to them or vice versa)
Now we have four potential user groups:
- fulfill 1 and fulfill 2 → can vote
- fulfill 1 and not 2 → can vote
- fulfill not 1 but fulfill 2 → can vote
- fullfill not 1 and not 2 (because not knowing of the offer or not able to reach out) → cannot vote
Your reasoning creates an exclusion of group 4 compared to group 3, even if 4 fulfills your criteria for being worthy but cannot reach out to you (does not know about your offer, does not know of Join SIG, etc.).
At the same time, the criteria remains intransparent and not reproducible, making it questionable if and when people would feel safe to reach out to you for getting this right, which adds another exclusion: two contributors might have the very same contribution, but one comes to the personal opinion that that is likely not enough, the other comes to the opinion it is enough. One of the two would reach out to you, the other not. Again, two equal users end up in one being able to vote the other not.