Sebastian Moleski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Florence Devouard <[email protected]> > wrote: >>> I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within >>> the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a >>> representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. >> This should be checked by a lawyer, but imho, that's not correct, at >> least in France. Of course, this would depend on which types of >> decisions. If the decisions were completely operational and if the >> chapter has an ED, and if the decision is within the range of the >> strategy defined by the board, it's entirely okay that the ED makes the >> decision. > > This may indeed be different from legal system to legal system. German > law allows the board to appoint individuals who can represent the > chapter individually within a clearly defined subset of the board's > authority. I don't know French law but this may be something articles > of association/bylaws of your chapter may stipulate too. > >> However, in most other cases, I do not think that's okay. The >> responsability of the organisation is in the hands of the entire board. >> Not one member. Even if the member receives the delegation to *vote* at >> the meeting, I believe the decision can be cancelled afterwards if the >> board is not in agreement. > > If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with > organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority > would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in > certain areas among the board, the representative's mandate should > just exlude that topic area. That means, he can participate in some > discussions in a binding way, in others only in an > advisory/consultative manner.
Correct. Which is fine as long as no decision is made during the general meeting with all chapters... :-( >>> If we accept some sort of democratic process as the premise of >>> decision making, open membership creates a range of problems fixed >>> membership does not. If, for example, each chapter gets two voting >>> representatives, it's easier to make up the rules that follow >>> regarding quorum and debate. It's much harder if every chapter can >>> bring as many as they want. >> Sorry, I meant "open membership" but within the board pool (and probably >> ED pool :-)). If 5/9 board members are present at the meeting, they >> constitute a quorum and their decision is *legal*. Of course, the >> chapter may have one or two votes within the entire group. > > Sure. The question is one of fairness: is it fair for some chapters to > send five delegates (i.e. voices in discussion) when others can only > afford to send one? LOL. Is that fair that some participants are fluent with English and others are not ? Is that fair that some participants have a loud voice and others a weak one that can not float over the general noise ? Is that fair that some participants are easy and outgoing, whilst others are rather discreet and shy ? Is that fair that a very well developped chapter has only one voice to elect a member whilst a brand new little chapter also has one ? There is no fairness in the world Seb, only an approach of fairness :-) > Sebastian > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
