My actual preference for team badges is that for a team to earn a badge, the team must have some minimum number of members earn the same badge. For example, when the team has 10 members with a Bronze for HFCC, the team get the Bronze for the same project.

Let's take 1 rule which is unshakable for all my understanding of "right": What you have / what a team would have in certificates / badges / recognition, will never be taken. If there are higher levels to be set for any of the 'awards', it would be new/added levels. Being at 89 days nearing gold and than be told "No you now need 180 days" would be very hard to swallow, particular for the small crunchers. This is still a community where all contributions are appreciated. Such appreciations should not and could not in my mind be deflated.

Members with the present mechanism is a shaky measure for the creation to join is no commitment to contribute. The sample of over 50% inactive is telling why that would not work. Members come and go. Also the time factor is a shaky measure. ACAH was a unique situation of just 33,000 jobs, which in fact could have been done in 3000 jobs or less. If at all, it should be a scaling that pretty much is equal on all current, past and future projects. If a team was not there, or a person was not there at time of a project, well that distinguishes those that were with WCG through thick and thin.

So, with the statistical ''by project'' information public, who volunteers to run an analysis and propose on that a scheme with levels, sound enough to stand for years to come?

Edit: inserted "added"