Hi There,
this message particularly addresses the EMEA Ambassadors, although of course every Ambassador regardless of the geographical location is free to comment.
Attached is the first initial draft of the Statutes of Fedora EMEA, which have been submitted for a principle (non-official) approval to the German Financial Department some time ago, too.
As we have not yet heard back from the German Financial Department, we need to treat this initial draft with a little caution as far as additions or changes are concerned; The document is in PDF format for a reason ;-) I send this version of the document to all Ambassadors anyway, because we do need some time to read the document and collect all comments before the group of Ambassadors attending FOSDEM 2008 in Brussels, Belgium takes it up for voting.
The Statutes are based on a set that has been previously accepted by the German Financial Department (a local LUG), with some minor changes as to what the geographical scope and possibilities (meetings in person, etc.) are.
Please note that although the scope of the NPO according to these Statutes is very, very broad, the NPO will not (can not) interfere with normal Fedora Project's daily operations, principles or other contributors and Ambassadors regardless of the continent either of those take place in -it is primarily founded to provide a legal entity to those of us (Ambassadors) in the EMEA area that need to share some kind of resources (think of a purchasing an Event Kit that is being shipped from one place to another, and cover the back of those Ambassadors that now invest privately in getting a booth at an Event, etc.).
Please also mind that none of this is set in stone, and the board (to be elected at FOSDEM 2008 if Statutes are accepted) will need to make the final decision on those topics.
Any comments to what is in the document are welcome (via the mailing list or to myself in private); any comments as to what is happening here I would prefer you send to me in private to prevent any kind of discussion taking any direction we are going to regret at some point in time.
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Hi
5.3: "contribution fee may be 1,000 per year or less"
1) 1,000 Euro? Or Pound Sterling? US dollars? Peanuts? Please specify :) 2) wtf, 1,000? isn't that a little too high? or maybe even more than just a little... or is there a good reason for that amount?
I'd say everything else is ok. I'm not good in such things, tho.
Regards red / SandroMathys
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Hi There,
this message particularly addresses the EMEA Ambassadors, although of course every Ambassador regardless of the geographical location is free to comment.
Attached is the first initial draft of the Statutes of Fedora EMEA, which have been submitted for a principle (non-official) approval to the German Financial Department some time ago, too.
As we have not yet heard back from the German Financial Department, we need to treat this initial draft with a little caution as far as additions or changes are concerned; The document is in PDF format for a reason ;-) I send this version of the document to all Ambassadors anyway, because we do need some time to read the document and collect all comments before the group of Ambassadors attending FOSDEM 2008 in Brussels, Belgium takes it up for voting.
The Statutes are based on a set that has been previously accepted by the German Financial Department (a local LUG), with some minor changes as to what the geographical scope and possibilities (meetings in person, etc.) are.
Please note that although the scope of the NPO according to these Statutes is very, very broad, the NPO will not (can not) interfere with normal Fedora Project's daily operations, principles or other contributors and Ambassadors regardless of the continent either of those take place in -it is primarily founded to provide a legal entity to those of us (Ambassadors) in the EMEA area that need to share some kind of resources (think of a purchasing an Event Kit that is being shipped from one place to another, and cover the back of those Ambassadors that now invest privately in getting a booth at an Event, etc.).
Please also mind that none of this is set in stone, and the board (to be elected at FOSDEM 2008 if Statutes are accepted) will need to make the final decision on those topics.
Any comments to what is in the document are welcome (via the mailing list or to myself in private); any comments as to what is happening here I would prefer you send to me in private to prevent any kind of discussion taking any direction we are going to regret at some point in time.
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
-- Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list Fedora-ambassadors-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ambassadors-list
Excuse all english_(and_also_other)_speaking persons ...
Sandro, this is the correct german phrase and it depends on german law for a "Verein" that you need this article ...
"Der Mitgliedsbeitrag darf EURO 1.000 pro Jahr nicht übersteigen. Änderungen dieses Höchstbetrages müssen durch die Mitgliederversammlung einstimmig beschlossen werden."
1.) The currency isn't fixed till today, in case of the founding in Germany we might choose EURO as well :-)
2.) this is the highest amount the NPO is getting from the members per year.
3.) you need to read the article in the content of all article and understand, that the board is handling in the name of all members, ... .. and all members together decide and vote for the member fee :-)
Regards
Gerold
Am Sonntag, den 20.01.2008, 10:50 +0100 schrieb red_alert:
Hi
5.3: "contribution fee may be 1,000 per year or less"
- 1,000 Euro? Or Pound Sterling? US dollars? Peanuts? Please specify :)
- wtf, 1,000? isn't that a little too high? or maybe even more than
just a little... or is there a good reason for that amount?
I'd say everything else is ok. I'm not good in such things, tho.
Regards red / SandroMathys
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Hi There,
this message particularly addresses the EMEA Ambassadors, although of course every Ambassador regardless of the geographical location is free to comment.
Attached is the first initial draft of the Statutes of Fedora EMEA, which have been submitted for a principle (non-official) approval to the German Financial Department some time ago, too.
As we have not yet heard back from the German Financial Department, we need to treat this initial draft with a little caution as far as additions or changes are concerned; The document is in PDF format for a reason ;-) I send this version of the document to all Ambassadors anyway, because we do need some time to read the document and collect all comments before the group of Ambassadors attending FOSDEM 2008 in Brussels, Belgium takes it up for voting.
The Statutes are based on a set that has been previously accepted by the German Financial Department (a local LUG), with some minor changes as to what the geographical scope and possibilities (meetings in person, etc.) are.
Please note that although the scope of the NPO according to these Statutes is very, very broad, the NPO will not (can not) interfere with normal Fedora Project's daily operations, principles or other contributors and Ambassadors regardless of the continent either of those take place in -it is primarily founded to provide a legal entity to those of us (Ambassadors) in the EMEA area that need to share some kind of resources (think of a purchasing an Event Kit that is being shipped from one place to another, and cover the back of those Ambassadors that now invest privately in getting a booth at an Event, etc.).
Please also mind that none of this is set in stone, and the board (to be elected at FOSDEM 2008 if Statutes are accepted) will need to make the final decision on those topics.
Any comments to what is in the document are welcome (via the mailing list or to myself in private); any comments as to what is happening here I would prefer you send to me in private to prevent any kind of discussion taking any direction we are going to regret at some point in time.
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
-- Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list Fedora-ambassadors-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ambassadors-list
-- Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list Fedora-ambassadors-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ambassadors-list
red_alert wrote:
Hi
5.3: "contribution fee may be 1,000 per year or less"
- 1,000 Euro? Or Pound Sterling? US dollars? Peanuts? Please specify :)
You're right, it should specify the currency. Noted.
- wtf, 1,000? isn't that a little too high? or maybe even more than
just a little... or is there a good reason for that amount?
Like Gerold already suggested too, this is a maximum contribution fee the NPO can request from it's members, and maximums are often high. I would not expect to see this maximum reached, ever, but from a legal point of view the NPO must have /a/ maximum. So you choose one that is not insanely high, but will also not limit you for many, many years to come. Money devaluates over time and given that the General Members Meeting must unanimously agree on raising or lowering this maximum, having to do so every 5, 10 or even 20 years would become a problem for any organization.
I'd say everything else is ok. I'm not good in such things, tho.
Thank you ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
- wtf, 1,000? isn't that a little too high? or maybe even more than
just a little... or is there a good reason for that amount?
Like Gerold already suggested too, this is a maximum contribution fee the NPO can request from it's members, and maximums are often high. I would not expect to see this maximum reached, ever, but from a legal point of view the NPO must have /a/ maximum. So you choose one that is not insanely high, but will also not limit you for many, many years to come. Money devaluates over time and given that the General Members Meeting must unanimously agree on raising or lowering this maximum, having to do so every 5, 10 or even 20 years would become a problem for any organization.
Ok, that's the reason in favor of such a high amount. Are there no contras then? I know that in some countries the maximum fee is important when it gets to liability but AFAIK this is not the case in Germany (at least not with an e.V.). Something else to consider? ...if not, I'd say 1,000 Euro is fair.
What initial fee are you going to propose at the formation, anyway?
Regards red
red_alert wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
- wtf, 1,000? isn't that a little too high? or maybe even more than
just a little... or is there a good reason for that amount?
Like Gerold already suggested too, this is a maximum contribution fee the NPO can request from it's members, and maximums are often high. I would not expect to see this maximum reached, ever, but from a legal point of view the NPO must have /a/ maximum. So you choose one that is not insanely high, but will also not limit you for many, many years to come. Money devaluates over time and given that the General Members Meeting must unanimously agree on raising or lowering this maximum, having to do so every 5, 10 or even 20 years would become a problem for any organization.
Ok, that's the reason in favor of such a high amount. Are there no contras then? I know that in some countries the maximum fee is important when it gets to liability but AFAIK this is not the case in Germany (at least not with an e.V.). Something else to consider? ...if not, I'd say 1,000 Euro is fair.
Well, imagine what it would look like if we said 3 billion is the maximum contribution fee. I'm not sure that would be accepted by the German Financial Department (so there's a contra). As I'm not German though maybe Gerold is in a better position to give you the proper answer ;-)
What initial fee are you going to propose at the formation, anyway?
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 rightaway.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
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 rightaway.
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.
Regards red
red_alert wrote:
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'm not sure how free we are in defining different types of memberships or sponsorships. Here also, Gerold may be in a better position to answer that.
A legal person as a member would be saying; "hey, I support you", whereas a legal person as a sponsor is saying "hey, I support you and here's what you need to continue and expand what you're doing". Being completely different, I'm not sure we would want to distinguish between different types of sponsorships at all, other then maybe "primary" and "secondary" sponsorships. Either way, this is kind of far-fetched speculation on what might happen in some future whereas we're not sure we even need to describe such differentiation between sponsorships in the Statutes -opposed to memberships, I haven't seen sponsorships being mentioned anywhere before.
So, at least in this discussion, let's stick to the memberships rather then all the relationships that might or might not be accomplished in the future.
You suggest we should not differentiate between different kinds of memberships which I think is OK as it both simplifies the Statutes, bookkeeping and accounting, and isn't as obscure to (potential) new members. If anyone thinks differently though, now is the time to tell us ;-)
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?
If we're not getting any contra's, the concept of honorary members is getting in the Statutes. The way someone could become an honorary member is to be determined at a later point when we have something drafted up. I'm sure there'll be something such as a 3/4 majority GMM has to agree and maybe something like only the board can propose such, although I'm not much in favor of the minimum 5 years of membership limit.
Anyone with ideas on the topic, feel free to draft something up that would fit right in with the Statutes and send it here.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
You suggest we should not differentiate between different kinds of memberships which I think is OK as it both simplifies the Statutes, bookkeeping and accounting, and isn't as obscure to (potential) new members. If anyone thinks differently though, now is the time to tell us ;-)
Not exactly. I'd like to have legal persons pay more than natural persons. i.e. having different mandatory/maximum fees for both. But without a difference in number of votes or so.
If we're not getting any contra's, the concept of honorary members is getting in the Statutes. The way someone could become an honorary member is to be determined at a later point when we have something drafted up. I'm sure there'll be something such as a 3/4 majority GMM has to agree and maybe something like only the board can propose such, although I'm not much in favor of the minimum 5 years of membership limit.
Me neither. Say 3/4 of GMM and the board Concordant...that'd be good.
Regards red
red_alert wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
You suggest we should not differentiate between different kinds of memberships which I think is OK as it both simplifies the Statutes, bookkeeping and accounting, and isn't as obscure to (potential) new members. If anyone thinks differently though, now is the time to tell us ;-)
Not exactly. I'd like to have legal persons pay more than natural persons. i.e. having different mandatory/maximum fees for both. But without a difference in number of votes or so.
OK, very good point. So, do we want the Statutes to explicitly enable us to give legal persons to have a different kind of contribution fee then natural persons, or do we want to set it statically (percentile expression / something) ?
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Hi all,
this point you brought up here is future! First we have to bring up the basics! Please be careful and don`t through "normal membership" together with "funding" and other possibilitys to support ...
Am Sonntag, den 20.01.2008, 22:02 +0100 schrieb Jeroen van Meeuwen:
red_alert wrote:
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'm not sure how free we are in defining different types of memberships or sponsorships. Here also, Gerold may be in a better position to answer that.
A legal person as a member would be saying; "hey, I support you", whereas a legal person as a sponsor is saying "hey, I support you and here's what you need to continue and expand what you're doing". Being completely different, I'm not sure we would want to distinguish between different types of sponsorships at all, other then maybe "primary" and "secondary" sponsorships. Either way, this is kind of far-fetched speculation on what might happen in some future whereas we're not sure we even need to describe such differentiation between sponsorships in the Statutes -opposed to memberships, I haven't seen sponsorships being mentioned anywhere before.
So, at least in this discussion, let's stick to the memberships rather then all the relationships that might or might not be accomplished in the future.
You suggest we should not differentiate between different kinds of memberships which I think is OK as it both simplifies the Statutes, bookkeeping and accounting, and isn't as obscure to (potential) new members. If anyone thinks differently though, now is the time to tell us ;-)
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?
If we're not getting any contra's, the concept of honorary members is getting in the Statutes. The way someone could become an honorary member is to be determined at a later point when we have something drafted up. I'm sure there'll be something such as a 3/4 majority GMM has to agree and maybe something like only the board can propose such, although I'm not much in favor of the minimum 5 years of membership limit.
Anyone with ideas on the topic, feel free to draft something up that would fit right in with the Statutes and send it here.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
-- Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list Fedora-ambassadors-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ambassadors-list
Hi there :-)
again me, sorry by answering all the mails even late; but at work, I have no possibility to do private things like answering mails :-)
Am Sonntag, den 20.01.2008, 20:26 +0100 schrieb Jeroen van Meeuwen:
red_alert wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
- wtf, 1,000? isn't that a little too high? or maybe even more than
just a little... or is there a good reason for that amount?
Like Gerold already suggested too, this is a maximum contribution fee the NPO can request from it's members, and maximums are often high. I would not expect to see this maximum reached, ever, but from a legal point of view the NPO must have /a/ maximum. So you choose one that is not insanely high, but will also not limit you for many, many years to come. Money devaluates over time and given that the General Members Meeting must unanimously agree on raising or lowering this maximum, having to do so every 5, 10 or even 20 years would become a problem for any organization.
Ok, that's the reason in favor of such a high amount. Are there no contras then? I know that in some countries the maximum fee is important when it gets to liability but AFAIK this is not the case in Germany (at least not with an e.V.). Something else to consider? ...if not, I'd say 1,000 Euro is fair.
^^ Imagine, the first meeting can`t decide due a lack of attendees; on the second meeting there are only five members; the President and four other and they want to have the annual membership price increased to 10.000 Euro. And the vote is done by 3:2 so the vote is done and law and you have to pay .... Ok, it is a very abstract voting, but it could happen and if you have such a amount in the statutes with a amount of members which have to vote to CHANGE such things ... it can`t happen like above described ...
Well, imagine what it would look like if we said 3 billion is the maximum contribution fee. I'm not sure that would be accepted by the German Financial Department (so there's a contra). As I'm not German though maybe Gerold is in a better position to give you the proper answer ;-)
What initial fee are you going to propose at the formation, anyway?
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.
^^ Because of my Linux Usergroup is a computer "NPO" we decides to have a 2 expotential amount .... in our case we pay 2 exp. 11 == 1024 == EUR 10,25 per month :-) Just for example
regards
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:33:34 +0100 Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
Hi There,
this message particularly addresses the EMEA Ambassadors, although of course every Ambassador regardless of the geographical location is free to comment.
Attached is the first initial draft of the Statutes of Fedora EMEA, which have been submitted for a principle (non-official) approval to the German Financial Department some time ago, too.
As we have not yet heard back from the German Financial Department, we need to treat this initial draft with a little caution as far as additions or changes are concerned; The document is in PDF format for a reason ;-) I send this version of the document to all Ambassadors anyway, because we do need some time to read the document and collect all comments before the group of Ambassadors attending FOSDEM 2008 in Brussels, Belgium takes it up for voting.
The Statutes are based on a set that has been previously accepted by the German Financial Department (a local LUG), with some minor changes as to what the geographical scope and possibilities (meetings in person, etc.) are.
Please note that although the scope of the NPO according to these Statutes is very, very broad, the NPO will not (can not) interfere with normal Fedora Project's daily operations, principles or other contributors and Ambassadors regardless of the continent either of those take place in -it is primarily founded to provide a legal entity to those of us (Ambassadors) in the EMEA area that need to share some kind of resources (think of a purchasing an Event Kit that is being shipped from one place to another, and cover the back of those Ambassadors that now invest privately in getting a booth at an Event, etc.).
Please also mind that none of this is set in stone, and the board (to be elected at FOSDEM 2008 if Statutes are accepted) will need to make the final decision on those topics.
Any comments to what is in the document are welcome (via the mailing list or to myself in private); any comments as to what is happening here I would prefer you send to me in private to prevent any kind of discussion taking any direction we are going to regret at some point in time.
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
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 :)
Cheers
Thomas Canniot -MrTom
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 :)
Hi Thomas,
thank you for these very constructive comments. Some of these concerns I had, too (especially the "written" statements or empowering someone else to cast your vote and whether those votes had to be cast with the members being physically present at some location or that they could be submitted over a web-interface or email or IRC possibly).
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.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
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.
Regards red
Le Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:20:43 +0100, red_alert red_alert@the-psychiatry.ch a écrit :
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.
Well I don't think so... I think an association lives thanks to the people who feels concerned by it. If more than half of the members are away, it would be a problem and maybe you couldn't held a meeting before waiting for cleaning up your member base. And don't forget there are proxies, normally you could be able to write down on a paper and say : "i trust this person he can vote for me" or "As i can't come, vote for this people / I agree the decision being made".
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.
You could. The biggest lug in France sends email to you regularly so as to vote online if you can't come.
On all other points, I agree on what MrTom said.
Regards red
Cheers,
Thomas
OK,
sorry I'm at work and have no access to my regular mailsystem and account, but I think I have to reply here and try to describe a little ...
Le Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:20:43 +0100, red_alert red_alert@the-psychiatry.ch a écrit :
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.
Well I don't think so... I think an association lives thanks to the people who feels concerned by it. If more than half of the members are away, it would be a problem and maybe you couldn't held a meeting before waiting for cleaning up your member base. And don't forget there are proxies, normally you could be able to write down on a paper and say : "i trust this person he can vote for me" or "As i can't come, vote for this people / I agree the decision being made".
^^ The law wants that as the board is part of the member and act in the name of the member, that decissions like "member fee" or what is really important to decide, is done in the (lets call it) yearly "member-meeting" in which the members have to fullfill request from the law e.g. yearly commitment to the financial department etc.
AND if you don't get the percantage you (!!!!!) decide in the statutes are in person at this meeting you have to announce a second meeting which is, no more depending on the amount of available members, written in stone.
Let me try to make an example to clear out:
We'll have 100 Users; we decide (by the statutes) that a voting is done, when 20% of the members vote at a meeting. So we go ahead, and write a invitation to all members, we meet on January 1st. So 81 persons of our members are not in front of us (including the board) at the 1st so we need to invite for a second meeting .... we invite for 1st of february, ... unfortunately there are only 10 persons who are coming and voting BUT ... because this is the second invitation this vote is law. So it's up to us to define the quote of "how many persons" must attend at such a meeting (which must be held yearly once) to decide something and it's up to everybody to attend the invitation (because the timeframe before the meeting is also given by the statutes) at the first time. AND the members have every time the possibility to WANT and initiate a member meeting if they are unsatisfied with the board for example ...
Any questions? Any comments? Any more explanations? Hopefully in german, because my english is not the best *bg*
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.
You could. The biggest lug in France sends email to you regularly so as to vote online if you can't come.
On all other points, I agree on what MrTom said.
Regards red
Cheers,
Thomas
Regards
Gerold
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:15:39 +0100 (CET) "Gerold" gerold@lugd.org wrote:
OK,
sorry I'm at work and have no access to my regular mailsystem and account, but I think I have to reply here and try to describe a little ...
Le Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:20:43 +0100, red_alert red_alert@the-psychiatry.ch a écrit :
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.
Well I don't think so... I think an association lives thanks to the people who feels concerned by it. If more than half of the members are away, it would be a problem and maybe you couldn't held a meeting before waiting for cleaning up your member base. And don't forget there are proxies, normally you could be able to write down on a paper and say : "i trust this person he can vote for me" or "As i can't come, vote for this people / I agree the decision being made".
^^ The law wants that as the board is part of the member and act in the name of the member, that decissions like "member fee" or what is really important to decide, is done in the (lets call it) yearly "member-meeting" in which the members have to fullfill request from the law e.g. yearly commitment to the financial department etc.
AND if you don't get the percantage you (!!!!!) decide in the statutes are in person at this meeting you have to announce a second meeting which is, no more depending on the amount of available members, written in stone.
Let me try to make an example to clear out:
We'll have 100 Users; we decide (by the statutes) that a voting is done, when 20% of the members vote at a meeting. So we go ahead, and write a invitation to all members, we meet on January 1st. So 81 persons of our members are not in front of us (including the board) at the 1st so we need to invite for a second meeting .... we invite for 1st of february, ... unfortunately there are only 10 persons who are coming and voting BUT ... because this is the second invitation this vote is law. So it's up to us to define the quote of "how many persons" must attend at such a meeting (which must be held yearly once) to decide something and it's up to everybody to attend the invitation (because the timeframe before the meeting is also given by the statutes) at the first time. AND the members have every time the possibility to WANT and initiate a member meeting if they are unsatisfied with the board for example ...
Any questions? Any comments? Any more explanations? Hopefully in german, because my english is not the best *bg*
It was very clear, thanks !
Thomas
Just a short answer of the missing points from Thomas for clearance ...
Am Sonntag, den 20.01.2008, 22:29 +0100 schrieb Thomas Canniot:
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.
^^ we decide how we invite; best is (in our case) by E-Mail; but what will you do if a member changes his E-mail and don`t inform us?
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.
^^ That's a good question, indeed :-) Let me answer like a diplomat (which is very heavy for me): The Board represent the whole NPO to outside, to the law, to public and all other companys, entitys or the financial department for the anual declarion of the money ... you need in Germany a minimum of a president and his vice and we did it in our own entity the voice for the vice is splitted to two persons who can only act together ... again example(s): only ONE person who is president: if he dies in an accident (worst case) the entity is without any legal person who can be responsible and give declararion etc. one President, one vice: President goes and order for the entity a house; the Vice don`t like that and goes and cancel that house and buy another one ... because that such a situation can't never happen the vice-voice or let`s say "power" should be splitted to two persons together :-)
A treasurer is also needed to divide the power of money away from the President; he has to do another job as looking for the memberships, the payments and all this administrative things.
Can you imagine how the NPO should work?
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 :)
Cheers
Thomas Canniot -MrTom
Le Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:59:12 +0100, Gerold Kassube gerold@lugd.org a écrit :
Just a short answer of the missing points from Thomas for clearance ...
Am Sonntag, den 20.01.2008, 22:29 +0100 schrieb Thomas Canniot:
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.
^^ we decide how we invite; best is (in our case) by E-Mail; but what will you do if a member changes his E-mail and don`t inform us?
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.
^^ That's a good question, indeed :-) Let me answer like a diplomat (which is very heavy for me): The Board represent the whole NPO to outside, to the law, to public and all other companys, entitys or the financial department for the anual declarion of the money ... you need in Germany a minimum of a president and his vice and we did it in our own entity the voice for the vice is splitted to two persons who can only act together ... again example(s): only ONE person who is president: if he dies in an accident (worst case) the entity is without any legal person who can be responsible and give declararion etc. one President, one vice: President goes and order for the entity a house; the Vice don`t like that and goes and cancel that house and buy another one ... because that such a situation can't never happen the vice-voice or let`s say "power" should be splitted to two persons together :-)
A treasurer is also needed to divide the power of money away from the President; he has to do another job as looking for the memberships, the payments and all this administrative things.
Can you imagine how the NPO should work?
Of course I can, but in the statutes, it should be written something like : the president reigns, the vice role is blablabla and the treasurer counts the cheques. I know their role, but if they are not written, they can't be obvious and interpretation is on its way. There should be no obviousness, as they all depend on people mind. No place for interpretation, or you may have problem in the future.
Thomas
Thomas, ...
please have a look at paragraph 8 and following:
In legal matters, the association will only be represented by the Chair of the Board and by the vice-chair or vice-chairs of the Board jointly. The chairman and vice-chairmen are the Board as described in section 26 paragraph 2, sentence 1 of the BGB. The vice-chairmen have representative powers only in the event the chair is unforeseeable unavailable, or when instructed by the chair.
2. The Board conducts the business of the association and is responsible for all matters not covered by the Statutes of another body of the association. The Board has the following tasks:
1. Preparation of the agenda and convening of the General Members Meeting,
2. An annual business plan, annual financial statements and annual reports,
3. Preparation and execution of the decisions of the General Members Meeting,
4. The General Members Meeting decides on a proposal of the Board's rules.
5. The Board takes its decisions by a simple majority. It is allowed to make decisions only when the full Board is able to cast a vote. Representation and abstention is not permitted. Absent Board members can empower other Board members only in writing, describing what vote to cast. Written, telephone voting and voting by e-mail is allowed. Also allowed are votes cast on Internet Relay Chat channels allowing registered nicknames only, if and when the chair indicates each voter's identities are verified.
Am Montag, den 21.01.2008, 22:38 +0100 schrieb Thomas Canniot:
Le Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:59:12 +0100, Gerold Kassube gerold@lugd.org a écrit :
Just a short answer of the missing points from Thomas for clearance ...
Am Sonntag, den 20.01.2008, 22:29 +0100 schrieb Thomas Canniot:
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.
^^ we decide how we invite; best is (in our case) by E-Mail; but what will you do if a member changes his E-mail and don`t inform us?
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.
^^ That's a good question, indeed :-) Let me answer like a diplomat (which is very heavy for me): The Board represent the whole NPO to outside, to the law, to public and all other companys, entitys or the financial department for the anual declarion of the money ... you need in Germany a minimum of a president and his vice and we did it in our own entity the voice for the vice is splitted to two persons who can only act together ... again example(s): only ONE person who is president: if he dies in an accident (worst case) the entity is without any legal person who can be responsible and give declararion etc. one President, one vice: President goes and order for the entity a house; the Vice don`t like that and goes and cancel that house and buy another one ... because that such a situation can't never happen the vice-voice or let`s say "power" should be splitted to two persons together :-)
A treasurer is also needed to divide the power of money away from the President; he has to do another job as looking for the memberships, the payments and all this administrative things.
Can you imagine how the NPO should work?
Of course I can, but in the statutes, it should be written something like : the president reigns, the vice role is blablabla and the treasurer counts the cheques. I know their role, but if they are not written, they can't be obvious and interpretation is on its way. There should be no obviousness, as they all depend on people mind. No place for interpretation, or you may have problem in the future.
Thomas
Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list Fedora-ambassadors-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ambassadors-list
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Hi There,
this message particularly addresses the EMEA Ambassadors, although of course every Ambassador regardless of the geographical location is free to comment.
Attached is the first initial draft of the Statutes of Fedora EMEA, which have been submitted for a principle (non-official) approval to the German Financial Department some time ago, too.
So, given the comments basically what has changed is I added a "0" chapter defining some of the terms used, and I expanded the responsibilities of each board's role or function.
If that's all we feel needs to be changed, we're golden to take this one up for a vote February 23rd in Brussels.
Make sure any comments get in this coming week, so that I can send out a final in time for everyone to read.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org