[Ambassadors] EMEA: Preliminary Statutes

red_alert red_alert at the-psychiatry.ch
Mon Jan 21 01:20:43 UTC 2008

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Thomas Canniot wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 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.


More information about the Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list