Re: [Fsfe-uk] Proposed constitution for a UA

[MJ Ray]

> Looks okay. I have a few comments, although some of them are in the 'do
> not touch' areas :/

That's OK.  I'll try to field those as best I can.

> - 7i. (query ;) Are we delberately sticking to this, on the grounds that
> someone not fit to be the trustee of a charity is unfit for membership
> of the committee?

My understanding is that if we allow committee members who are unfit to be
charity trustees, then the association will be not allowed to be a charity.

> - 7. I would like to see a further sub-clause to remove people who
> participate in an anti-free software action: this would be extremely
> difficult to word, though, but I could see it being a useful
> big-red-button...

I think we probably have to rely on the power to refuse membership from such
people?

> - 9a (query) another reference to the charities' act.

Same answer.

> - 10a. Committee quorum of 0.5 seems fine; 0.1 of members seems vastly
> unobtainable :( I could see a lot of people joining AFFS having read an
> article about it in a magazine, for example, so it's not beyond the
> realms of possibility that we're going to have hundreds of members.
> Let's say we reach 1000 - quorum is then 100 people. That seems
> unrealistic in terms of an AGM; although it would be great if that many
> people would participate that actively.=20

I think most of the voting would have to take place by other means in such a
distributed organisation anyway.

> - 10b. Postal voting, but not e-mail voting. Shurely shome mishtake? :)

I'm quite unsure on this, I admit.  Unless our web of trust extends to them,
how do we authenticate the vote?  Or do we not allow email votes from such
untrusted people.  If you can explain that, I'll amend.

> - 10b. I would like to see more detailed rules on voting members to
> committee: simple majority is a bit British ;) I would prefer
> alternative transferable vote, or some similar system, although I
> realise that the complexity often puts people off.=20
> (like http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/sep/votingsystems/avrules.htm)

As a trained statistician, I personally prefer STV with Meek's Method. 
Would that be acceptable to you, Alex?  ATV isn't really appropriate for
multiple winner votes, is it?  STV collapses to it for single winner votes
anyway.  Does anyone else have strong opinions on this?  If we reach a
conclusion, I'll amend.

> - 10b again ;) We should explicitly designate a returning officer per
> vote; someone other than the chair (Secretary, or Treasurer, in that
> preference perhaps?)

That's a matter for the standing orders, I believe.

> - 12d. I didn't note anywhere where it said who the signatories were:
> chair, vice chair/secretary and treasurer, presumably?

As nominated by the committee, presumably.  Formatting-fu in 12 anyway.

> - 14.2 name of the assocation clause? I would also drop the 'written
> permission... Commissioners' section; they should just be invariant ;)
> - 14.3 charity again.
> - 14.4 commissioners again

Coo, a goof in the NCVO paperwork, I think!

> - 16. E-mail as well as snail mail, preferably. We shouldn't, by any
> means, rule out snail mail, but an email copy helps.

What do we do for people without email addresses?  Everyone has a last know
postal address, although we should probably email where possible.

> Gets my vote, so long as we can agree on this?

See what you think of the above.

> So... is the plan to become unincorporated first and then take a more
> considered approach?

Yes.  I think we need legal advice to incorporate and to do that, we're
probably going to have to pay for it.  To pay for it, we need some way to
collect money in the name of the organisation, and the easiest way to do
that is to form it.  If there's a flaw in that logic, please tell me.

> I thought that we were going for articles & memoranda for a ltd., but a
> few bits in this don't necessarily make sense (being bound by Charities
> Act 1993) - maybe I'm just not aware of these kinds of legal framework ;)

Being bound by the Charities Act is necessary if we want to become a
charity, which is why they're there.  People seem to prefer charities.  Ho
hum.
-- 
MJR