[Ambassadors] EMEA: Preliminary Statutes

[Thomas Canniot]

Le Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:20:43 +0100,
red_alert <red_alert at the-psychiatry.ch> a écrit :

> 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.

Well I don't think so... I think an association lives thanks to the
people who feels concerned by it. If more than half of the members are
away, it would be a problem and maybe you couldn't held a meeting
before waiting for cleaning up your member base.
And don't forget there are proxies, normally you could be able to write
down on a paper and say : "i trust this person he can vote for me" or
"As i can't come, vote for this people / I agree the decision being
made".


> 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.
> 

You could. The biggest lug in France sends email to you regularly so as
to vote online if you can't come.

> On all other points, I agree on what MrTom said.
> 
> Regards
> red
> 

Cheers,

Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ambassadors/attachments/20080121/fa39a429/attachment.sig>