Re: [OSCOM] bylaw and organisational changes

Hi, All,

I can see already the disadvantage of being on the East Coast of the US 
is the number of OSCOM emails each morning from all points east!

On membership, I would like to suggest that we consider an "open" policy 
with a nominal, annual fee. In contrast to requiring an invitation or 
Board approval for membership. I agree with the previous posts that the 
Board should provide long-term stability, and that the members effect 
the programs. If this is the case, perhaps *more* members is a primary 
goal for the organization. Here are the advantages, as I see it.

-- More members will increase interaction, contributions, and ideas.

Clearly, being a member does not equal active participation, but more 
members would create a larger pool on which to draw. Those members who 
have ideas and are willing to implement the ideas would emerge from this 
pool.

-- More members will increase the viability of events

We would be in a better position to sponsor booths at CM-related events 
or OSCOM events.

-- Interested members

If we charge $US15 per year (or whatever) for membership, we will still 
get members with some level of commitment. And, we would get more 
revenue for OSCOM programs.

-- No additional cost

We have to maintain certain policies related to our membership - mailing 
lists, meeting notifications, etc. IMO, it is approximately the same 
work to do this for 20 or 200 members. (maybe Paul will correct me :) ).

Essentially, an open membership seems to be more democratic and 
meritocratic.

Regards,

Brad

Chalu Kim wrote:
> 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.
>>   
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://oscom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general