Re: [OSCOM] bylaw and organisational changes
Chalu Kim <[email protected]> Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:26:50 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.cms.oscom |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============1823163428==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------000100070103030005000001"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000100070103030005000001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Martin Baehr wrote:
> hi,
>
> moving this to a seperate thread to avoid mixing updiscussions on
> interpretation of the current state with discussions about how we would
> like it to be in the future.
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Andrea Resmini wrote:
>
>> Personally, I kind of object at the idea for two simple reasons: first,
>> unless we think to radically change the way OSCOM works, both Pres and
>> Vice-pres have mostly a representative and organizational role (6.5.1
>> 'The President directs the work of the association and shall preside at
>> Meetings of Members and the Board', same with the Vice on 6.5.2) which
>> does not seem to imply conflicts or the need for balancing; second,
>> since most is done via Members Meetings, I think that in this case less
>> (people) is more and will probably allow for a leaner organization workflow.
>>
>
> i fully agree with that.
> make the board to be the minimum necesary to comply with the law.
> this also makes it clearer that the work is to be done by the members,
>
Yes, along the same line. I see three components.
Members - I have been thinking you become a member as an invitation. I
am more interested in requirements of becoming a member. Can we impose
a very nominal fee and work requirement? It goes like; you pay a due
and work a few hours towards common good; write an article on open
source CMS, case studies and publish. Perhaps, no monetary due. You are
invited and don't work for common good of OSCOM. You are no longer a
member. If you do, you get to keep and vote after initial period.
Executive members - They are ones who execute day-to-day decisions and
become accountable. I mean president and vice and treasurer. They
provide leadership but can't change bylaws. Only board can. Or board
along with executive members?
Board - They are advisors and provide continuity. That means we need
pair down their power and transfer to members in some sense.
> not the board.
>
> greetings, martin.
>
--------------000100070103030005000001
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Martin Baehr wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20060922120549.GX13375-J82dVEKiPgVsIEQYbtjsvCEcasqEdqbRs2V0tQ3P5b8@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">hi,
moving this to a seperate thread to avoid mixing updiscussions on
interpretation of the current state with discussions about how we would
like it to be in the future.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Andrea Resmini wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Personally, I kind of object at the idea for two simple reasons: first,
unless we think to radically change the way OSCOM works, both Pres and
Vice-pres have mostly a representative and organizational role (6.5.1
'The President directs the work of the association and shall preside at
Meetings of Members and the Board', same with the Vice on 6.5.2) which
does not seem to imply conflicts or the need for balancing; second,
since most is done via Members Meetings, I think that in this case less
(people) is more and will probably allow for a leaner organization workflow.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
i fully agree with that.
make the board to be the minimum necesary to comply with the law.
this also makes it clearer that the work is to be done by the members,
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, along the same line. I see three components.<br>
<br>
Members - I have been thinking you become a member as an invitation. I
am more interested in requirements of becoming a member. Can we impose
a very nominal fee and work requirement? It goes like; you pay a due
and work a few hours towards common good; write an article on open
source CMS, case studies and publish. Perhaps, no monetary due. You are
invited and don't work for common good of OSCOM. You are no longer a
member. If you do, you get to keep and vote after initial period. <br>
<br>
Executive members - They are ones who execute day-to-day decisions and
become accountable. I mean president and vice and treasurer. They
provide leadership but can't change bylaws. Only board can. Or board
along with executive members?<br>
<br>
Board - They are advisors and provide continuity. That means we need
pair down their power and transfer to members in some sense.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20060922120549.GX13375-J82dVEKiPgVsIEQYbtjsvCEcasqEdqbRs2V0tQ3P5b8@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">not the board.
greetings, martin.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------000100070103030005000001--
--===============1823163428==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://oscom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
--===============1823163428==--