[Ambassadors] EMEA: Preliminary Statutes
red_alert
red_alert at the-psychiatry.ch
Mon Jan 21 01:20:43 UTC 2008
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Thomas Canniot wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I read the stautes and as promised here are my coments about them.
>>
>> In France, so as to avoid maybe misimpretation, we are used to
>> definded terms in a 0 article. For example, we define Fedora, Open
>> Source Software, mail (postal mail or email?), GNU/Linux, meeting,
>> vote, signature (handwriting or not?) so as they can't be any
>> misunderstanding while reading the statutes. The purpose is as well to
>> avoit problems. For example, if you send e-mail to ask people to join
>> a major meeting, with the vote of the board for example, and that it
>> is mentionned in the statutes that a postal mail will be sent to ask
>> people to come to the meeting, the meeting and all its content could
>> be canceled because the statutes were not respected. Just my 2 cents.
>>
>> 4.1 "written request" > if someday you decide to permit people to fill
>> an online formular on the web to subscribe to the association, their
>> application won't be valid. Don't go into details like this, or define
>> that "written" means for you that you assume it is also "written" when
>> you fill up a form on da web.
>> Same for 4.3
>>
>> I see ntohing to add but at the 8.4 article. You should describe the
>> tasks of the members of the board. What does the president, the vice
>> president, the treasurer and the secretary do ? In fact, always the
>> same, if some people became inactive, he could not be dismissed
>> because of his inaction, as the statutes do not tell what he has to do.
>> We had this problem in a lug in the North of France... this was damn
>> crap.
>>
>> I don't like this idea of quorum ... it could also prevent the
>> association to work fluently in the future. If people don't come to
>> the meeting, nor expresses any word about it, it is their problem, and
>> the association should not suffer from it. 7.4
>>
>> I think that's all :)
>>
>
>
> Others, please reply with your comments as I'll be watching this thread
> very closely and adjust the Statutes with some of the additions Thomas
> made unless I hear otherwise.
I'm not sure If I understand that right, Thomas - would you give the GMM
the quorum even if there's not half the members present? I'd say
that's pretty dangerous.
Still, I understand your point that organizing a second event is
contraproductive. I'd say expand 7.4 to say that there must be a online
(maybe over ML or a web-form) poll on the date and place of the GMM.
Maybe we should also add that the meeting is only taking place if over
50% of the members announced their participation previously (or maybe
52% to be sure). It's very likely that 50% are at the meeting then and
that no second meeting needs to be organized.
On all other points, I agree on what MrTom said.
Regards
red
More information about the ambassadors
mailing list