[Ambassadors] EMEA: Preliminary Statutes
red_alert at the-psychiatry.ch
Sun Jan 20 20:13:32 UTC 2008
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> We -anyone- can propose and reason for any amount of contribution fee,
> the trick is to find one the others agree with. As the Statutes
> describe, the contribution fee is a General Members Meeting's
> responsibility (2/3 majority of votes cast required -should these
> Statutes be accepted) -which is probably going to vote on what the board
> (to be elected still) proposes. So far the initial pseudo-official
> response to your question.
> Now in more general terms; There is of course the "minimum" contribution
> fee that makes a person become a "regular" member -this would be the
> mandatory fee.
> We /could/ also decide to have something like a "gold" or "platinum"
> membership. In some cases Associations decide a "gold" or "platinum"
> gets a certain discount at whatever the Association sells (in some cases
> you can imagine that includes event entrance tickets or merchandise). An
> Association could however also decide a "gold" or "platinum" member pays
> a higher contribution fee, but gets /nothing/ in return (besides the
> obvious kudo's from the other members). Then there's something we call
> "honorable member" (I'm sure I didn't translate that very well), which
> basically is a member that doesn't have to pay a contribution fee for
> the rest of his/her life -again, GMM would decide, mostly given due to
> exceptional achievements, etc, etc.
> Some of these forms of contribution fees or distinguishing different
> types of members will need to be in the Statutes as well, as well as
> being able to appoint those "honorable memberships" to anyone.
> Again, it's these things we may want to think about on beforehand, as
> changing the Statutes afterwards is way harder then getting them right
I was thinking about different types of membership as well. For
starters, I'd suggest to make at least two different fees: one for
natural and one for legal persons.
As for silver/gold/platinum/whatever memberships...I'd not do that. I'd
rather make basic/silver/.../whatever sponsorships.
e.g. if the membership fee is set to a maximum of 1,000:
- up to 1,000 contribution: (basic) sponsor
- 1,000 - 2,000: silver sponsor
- 2,000 - 5,000: gold sponsor
- 5'000 and over: platinum sponsor
Or maybe we should base the grades on the mandatory fee (which will
probably change more often than the maximum fee) and express the
different sponsorships in percents based on that.
e.g. (based on the mandatory fee)
- up to 100% of the mandatory fee: basic
- up to 200%: silver
- up to 500%: gold
- over 500%: platinum
...of course, the latter would result in smaller contributions for each
grade unless we state percentages like 1,000% which would look really
greedy in turn.
I'd say honorary members would be a good thing, but we should make sure
that it's really hard to award it. 1) we wouldn't want to have too many
of them, 2) the less such members there are and the harder it is to
become one, the more "worth" it is to earn that sort of membership.
...maybe we could put something into the statutes that makes it harder.
3/4 of the GMM must agree, one must be a normal member for at least 5
years befor he/she can become a honorary member, ...what else could we
do to make it harder?
I'm eager to hear what others have to say about those points.
More information about the Fedora-ambassadors-list