[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Ambassadors] EMEA: Preliminary Statutes

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Thomas Canniot wrote:

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.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]