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

[Vanessa Conchodon]

Re ;o)

MJ Ray wrote:
> 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.

 Don't ;o)
 I won't be offensed just because we have'nt the same point of view ;o)

> 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. 

 I had never consider AFFS as FSFE-UK. Remember that I don't consider
 APRIL as FSFE-France. APRIL has got its own existence and I will do
 all my best to see AFFS having its own exitence too.

 And I don't want that AFFS turns bad.

> 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.

 That's not a pb. We can do lots of things for free software
 & for AFFS without beeing in executive committee.
 With a transparent managment, there is no pb.

> 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.

 That's not a pb. If committee is not too authoritative but takes
 the right decision after asking advices from members, where is the pb?

> 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 first count on future AFFS' members.
 FSFE is not AFFS. We have to find our own way for AFFS.

> I think these are already covered in the current wording?

 Not sure.
 I'd prefer more general term and expression in constitution
 to put what we want besides. But that's not really important.

> > 5. I don't agree with democratic system. 
> I don't agree with not having it.

 As I said, we don't share the same point of view ;o)
 What is the opinion of other future members?

 At least, we should write in constitution that the committee's
 members have to be renewed by 1/3. This way, members with 
 experience will have more weight than new one.

[meeting at least 2 times]
> 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?

  I'd prefer to write 2 (3 if you want) and to let people 
  of committee decide to meet eachother more than 3 times.
  You can write "but we encourage committee to meet more than 3".

> >    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.

  I was thinking that 10 could be too small. But perhaps you're
  right. Beeing more can complicate decision.

> > 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?

  yep.

> >  There is no section about ceasing of membership.
> 
> Section 4, clause 4, part ii.

  clause 4, section e, part 2.

  I had misunderstood that part. 

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

 As all numbers (1, a, i) were beginning at the same location, I
 was a little confused. Presentation is less important than 
 wording but it helps comprehension.
 But I agree: we have lots of work to do before changing that.

> >    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?

 "Any notice may be served by the Secretary on any member either 
  personally or on its appointed representative as the case may be, 
  or by sending it at her, his or its last known electronic mail mail
with 
     return receipt
  or through the post in a prepaid letter addressed to such member at
his, her 
  or its last known address, and any letter so sent shall be deemed to
have 
  been received within ten days of posting."?

 Cheers :o)

-- 
 Vanessa  Conchodon                            ^ee^ 
                                               (_/ `-^-. 
 e-mail :  nessie'at'little-monster"."org        .`___  \
                                                 (_) (_) \_^_.