Hi Frank, et al,
On 19 September 2016 at 06:49, Frank Habicht <ge...@geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> I agree, with all of the above. Well said.
> Considering that someone could control many legal entities, and these
> could all become associate members, that could change voting outcomes
> very much into that someone's favour.
My original intent, which I thought I had expressed clearly in
previous discussions, is a more fundamental issue with the Associate
Membership category: lack of value addition. This issue is a parent
issue to the proposed clarifying text. It must be addressed first to
pave way for, and inform any clarifying text on Associate Membership
in the bylaws.
Now just to be clear, I am not advocating for voting rights per se.
What I am advocating for is value addition for every membership
category. The idea of a membership category that collects fees but
offers no value in return just doesn't sit well with me.
My proposal is that we find substantial value for this category. If we
can't, I believe the membership category makes no sense and should
effectively be dropped all together.
I hope this provides more clarity on my views.
Community-Discuss mailing list