I'm saying that I would generally avoid such a paradigm if I'm trying to make real, lasting friends and build a strong local community, given that I might disappear or travel for a month at a time.
It's great if other people are finding enjoyment in such a process, but it doesn't fulfill my personal goals, and it does indeed come across as harsh and unwelcoming toward non-hyperlocal or family-oriented people.
That's a good question, I think it would have to be tuned around the size of the community and scale/frequency of activities, so it's hard to give a single number as a "persona" threshold.
I've been involved in creating local meetup groups before, I've found good people but I've also had these groups explode and turn into cliquey nightmares with people vying for soft power. I've personally had a relationship destroyed and have seen other relationships be destroyed because of these kinds of people. I've also started several online communities over the years since I was a child.
These experiences have made me think deeply about the role of moderation in communities, as well as the balance between preserving old institutions and allowing new ones to take root without alienating parts of the community.
So, to your point, I think it depends. Would the community suffer more from old-timers being cycled out too easily, or is it the kind of community where current participation matters most?
A primarily activity-based club might be ready to cut people more quickly, as they have a solid foundation for the group, perhaps even a charter, typically have specific leadership structure, and members can be interchangeable.
Whereas a certain kind of social group might value seniority and preservation of long-time members, and wouldn't want to cut them out of the conversation during periods of inactivity.
Maybe OP's group's limit of 1 month works well. Personally, for a social group, I'd consider 6-12 months to be on the short end of the scale.
