Re: [OSCOM] bylaw and organisational changes

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:26:50AM -0400, Chalu Kim wrote:
> I am more interested in requirements of becoming  a member. Can we impose =

> a very nominal fee and work requirement? =


i think that is a bad idea.
any form of payment will keep away a lot of potential contributors.
what may seem like a small amout of money to you can mean a weeks income
somewhere else.

also international bank transfers are expensive and simply not worth it
for payments that are below a 3digit euro value. (and not everyone has a
creditcard)

and even if it is a small sum, i am generally of the opinion that i am
willing to volunteer my time, but never my money (unless there is a
direct benefit to my time or work). this is just my personal view and i
don't know how many share it, but it would certainly keep me from joining.

and as for a work requirement?
how much work is enough?
how do you measure it?

something that takes one person a day, takes another an hour.
with any specific work requirement there will be people who are
expressly not good at doing that. but without specifics we may have lots
of debates over the merrit of the contribution.
i find this to complicated.

> You are invited and don't work for common good of OSCOM. =


what is the common good of oscom? another big topic better discussed in
another thread.

> 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?

currently only whole membership can change bylaws, and that's good
enough for me. i don't see the need to seperate executive and board.

> Board - They are advisors and provide continuity. That means we need =

> pair down their power and transfer to members in some sense.

do we need formal advisors?
anyone on the list can give advice. wether we listen to it is another
matter. but a formal position for this seems superfluous.
same for continuity. aren't active members good enough for that?

advice is generally accepted on merrit (meritocracy), even more so in the
free software community. those people do not need a title.

membership should be open to anyone without discrimination. it should be
easy to become and feel as being part of the group.

the only thing of concern is that a large group of new members could
starte a hostile takeover of the board, so we need to limit that. maybe
by imposing a requirement for being allowed to vote for the board
and for bylaw changes (eg: time: must have been a member for half a year
or a year or some contribution).

that would mean that any member can vote on other things. (like location
of a conference or other matters that don't involve the legal status of
the organization) this would essentially create a two class membership
but, if the importance of the board is reduced to legal matters this
should not be an issue to most.


on a related note, =

i'd like to see a representative from every free software content
managment project out there. these projects should be invited and be
members by default. (one vote per project)

this should encourage acceptance of oscom as an umbrella organization
for all free software content managment projects. it would help raise
awareness about oscom within those projects and put us in a much better
position with regards to establishing standards that are accepted by
all.

greetings, martin.
-- =

cooperative communication with sTeam      -     caudium, pike, roxen and un=
ix
offering: programming, training and administration   -  anywhere in the wor=
ld
--
pike programmer   travelling and working in europe             open-steam.o=
rg
unix system-      bahai.or.at                        iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).=
at
administrator     (caudium|gotpike).org                          is.schon.o=
rg
Martin B=E4hr       http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/