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

[MJ Ray]

Hi, sorry if I go through this too quick, but time is short.  I'll try to
explain things enough, though.  Thanks for your comments, Vanessa and I'm
sorry for trimming them so harshly.

> I disagree democraty in constitution as you will see it.

Well, quite bluntly, I disagree with you on that one.  You must remember
that AFFS is not FSFE-UK and that if it turns "bad" in some unforseen way,
FSFE can drop it like a hot stone.  The most important things for AFFS to do
are to give members some feel of "having a stake" in the free software
movement and to represent the free software community in the UK to other
bodies.  Democracy should encourage the first of these and the presence of a
democratic mandate should encourage others to listen to the views expressed
by AFFS.

I'm also concerned that the society could be subverted, but given that the
objects may never be changed, to do so would only ensure the destruction of
the present for and it will surely rise again with FSFE's help.

I do not for one minute suggest that FSFE-UK should be run on a democratic
basis for the same reasons outlined for FSFE (and where is that on the web
site?), but I think it furthers AFFS goals significantly.

> 2.ii I would erase "the use and development of". We can also exchange
>   information about licence or laws or anything related to FS.

I think these are already covered in the current wording?

> 2.iv is not on the beginning of the line ;o)

Formatting is hardly the biggest worry at this point.  It currently looks
terrible in the source form.

> 3.(1) I would have written this in the last points.
>   I don't think it is the most important point to see first.

First among equals.  If we start worrying about order of clauses, then we're
probably going to drift too far from the original.

> 4.a(1) I would have said "the activities of the Association" instead of
>    "the work".

Your choice.  I'll stick with NCVO unless it is totally obviously wrong.

> 5. I don't agree with democratic system.

I don't agree with not having it.

>    I would have prefer a non-democratic way (chair, vice-chair
>    treasurer and secretary should be elected by executive
>    commitee only, to be sure that these people share commitee's 
>    idea).

This could result in a somewhat strange situation.  Has anyone practical
experience with both types of elected officer?

>    I think too that they should be part of executive comitee 
>    before beeing Chair ans so on. Sometbody who has no knowledge
>    of executive commitee's work should not be able to be elected.

This is implied by the term lengths, I think.  Most people would feel the
same way.  However, a previously retired committee member will already have
experience of the work and should we really make them be elected as a
regular member again before becoming an officer?  Let's be careful how high
we put these hurdles.

> 6.a. I think "not less than 4 times" is a lot. 2 times would
>    be better. Don't forget that:
>    1) people can be everywhere in the UK and elsewhere
>       (think about people who would have to tale a plane)
>    2) irc or over ways of communication are available.
>    We can say something like "meet in real life or via
>    other ways of communication".

I think 2 is far too few.  I'm currently having problems with another
association where the committee members have not met since their election. 
It's hell.  People can miss meetings with good reason, remember, and if
they're unwilling/unable to attend too often, maybe the membership should
know that?

>    And I'm  not sure than giving a max size is a good thing.

You have to give a max size to the executive, I think.  Committees get
crippled if they have too many members.  You can always have non-committee
working groups etc to help out if needed.

> 6.d. what "nominations must be made... in writing"?
>    People who want to be an honorary officer have to write it?
>    Is e-mail authorized?

This was an open question that I'm just about to resolve by adding the
possibility of any postal communication being replaced by an electronic mail
and receipt of a delivery confirmation signed with a PGP signature known to
the AFFS keyring.  Does that make sense?

> 6.g that means that if a failure happens, it doesn't count (i.e.
>    the proceedings is not invalidated)?

The proceedings of the current committee are not invalidated by the failure
to elect a new one, as I understand it.  Re-elections should be held, of
course.

>  hmmm what happen if anti-free software action is related to work?

"Tough"?  ;-)  There is a difference between not working for free software
and working against free software, I think.  We need to be careful how this
is defined.  I'll take a crack at it.
>  There is no section about ceasing of membership.

Section 4, clause 4, part ii.

> 9.b. "The Chair of the Commitee may at any time at his/her/discretion"
>       I think a word is missing no?
>       I don't understand this part of the sentence.

No, the other part of that phrase is at the end of the sentence, after
several subclauses.  Nasty, but it does make sense.

>    We have to be coherent in numbers.

We have to minimise deviations from the approved form.  Such things are not
important as long as the wording is accurate.

> > - 16. E-mail as well as snail mail, preferably. We shouldn't, by any
> > means, rule out snail mail, but an email copy helps.
>    Don't forget international members can be members of AFFS.

Says who?  ;-)   Actually, I don't know what kind of a problem this causes
for legal matters if we suddenly start having members with no connection to
our area of operation.  Can you rephrase it?

>    That means that they can not having a UK address.
>
>    "Signed" is not at the beginning of line and 200 does'nt mean 
>    anything ;o)

Fill in the blanks :P
-- 
MJR