Hi Andreas, Thanks for the explanation, that's perfectly clear.
On 28 Apr, Andreas Enge wrote: (...) > hm, as I read it, I think it is wrong. The idea of the statutes is as > follows: > - The SAC is the organ that "is invested with the highest powers within > the limits of the goal of the Association and the resolutions adopted > by the General Assembly". So the SAC takes the decisions in day-to-day > life (while the General Assembly can take all decisions it wants to, > it is less actionable for everyday business). For instance, we have > run every membership request and every expense through the SAC. > - The Board (Presidency and Treasury) are the outward representatives of > Guix Europe; their roles are constructed as, if I may be so impolite, > figureheads required for the administrative work (and this is a lot of > important work, like doing the accounting, opening a bank account > (which has been *decided* by the SAC, but requires actual paper > signing or app fingerprinting or what not), writing minutes of > meetings and so on). Of course it is also expected that the Board is > active in promoting the association, so it does have an important role > in practice. But it *represents*, while the SAC *decides*. > (As to "two of them sit on a Board with the President and Treasurer", > I am not sure to understand correctly; if I do, it is a > misunderstanding on your part :) The "Board" *are* the two persons > "Presidency" and "Treasury", who are members of the SAC together with > other people not on the Board.) > > The essential idea was that of Guix Europe as a self-governed entity > where decisions are taken collectively, and that more or less all regular > members join the SAC (in practice, this often means a waiting period of > one year until the next GA). > > Some associations do this by not having a board, and only something like > the SAC ("collégiale"); however, this has the drawback that all members > of the SAC would have to be declared to the French administration (with > name, address, job and, I think, date of birth). The separation of Board > and SAC makes the *outward* appearance more look like a classical > association, and only the Board needs to be declared; while the *inward* > functioning is collective. And members need to disclose their identity > only to the members of the SAC, who vote on their acceptance (the > membership form has a box to tick if members are willing to share their > identity with the public; the current members of the SAC do, this is why > their names appear on the website; but it is not mandatory to take part > in the SAC). Concretely, before closing our account, the Banque Populaire > asked for a list of our members, which we refused to provide. (...) Ah! OK, I understand the rationale now. It's a key point for me, as it was confusing why there were both before. > Now the statutes have been written by laypersons, and as always, things > cannot be claimed with full confidence until tested in court. But at > least this is the spirit of the statutes, and also the way things have > been handled up to now. (I remember a somewhat sophist argument that in > practice, not each and every decision is taken by the SAC; for instance > as Treasury, I have taken the liberty to create a web page and am still > updating it from time to time as a regular member. However I would claim > that all important decisions, including membership and anything related > to finances, organising Guix Days and so on have been taken by the SAC.) > > > As to the relationship to Teams, I see none :) > Teams are a way of organising the Guix project itself, while > Guix Foundation (renamed so some time ago) is a non-profit supporting > work on Guix. Guix Foundation has a legal existence, while the Guix > project is a social fiction :) In any case, these are separate > entities. OK, got it. indieterminancy - does that give you enough information and clarity about the SAC? Steve / Futurile