Will Ross wrote: > nandalal, > > from the perspective of a simple discussion at a face to face > meeting, this is what is happening: > > "we have a motion and a second to approve the 1.0 draft of the > constitution. is there any further discussion?"
Although there was at least a two week opportunity to comment on the draft constitution prior to the meeting, with several messages from Molly reminding us of this fact. > as a responsible member of the community i first evaluate whether or > not it makes sense to initiate further discussion. deciding that it > makes sense to raise the objection, i ask for the floor and state my > concern so that my concern is noted as part of the process, even if i > have every confidence that the motion will pass over my further > discussion. Will, what *is* your concern with the constitution? I don't recall seeing it set out in any of your various posts in the last few days on the process for the inaugural meeting? > then, the chair receives a motion to close the discussion, which is > seconded and passed. > > does this "disrupt the process" or is it a legitimate part of the > process? you decide. No, you have not done anything wrong. I agree that the process may be a bit confusing. In retrospect, I think the problem has been that the act of voting for the resolutions and the act of applying for foundation membership have been rolled into a single process. Arguably it would have been better to separate them. In a face-to-face Inaugural Meeting: (0) Prior to the inaugural meeting, some form of discussion forum would be convened to draft a proposed constitution and nominate initial protem office bearers. (1) At the inaugural meeting, some speeches would be made and some time-limited discussion of the resolutions and constitution would be allowed, then votes would be taken on the resolutions to form the organisation with the proposed constitution and officers, and if there were sufficient yeah votes, formation of the organisation could then proceed. I understand that at least seven people are required before an organisation can be registered in Malaysia. (2) If the resolutions were successful (that is the minimum number of yeah votes were received), then an invitation is issued to join the nascent organisation as founding members. An absolutely typical requirement for membership is that the prospective member; a) agrees with the goals of the organisation; and b) that the member agrees to abide by the constitution, rules and regulations of the organisation (in the case of OSHCA, there is only a constitution). Note that members do NOT have to agree with every last word of the constitution, but they must agree to abide by it. That is analogous with national or state law - I don't agree with many of the laws of Australia, but I accept that as a citizen and resident of Australia I must abide by them (often grudgingly, but I still do so). I also accept that I can try to change those laws with which I don't agree through a range of activities, from lobbying political representatives through to direct participation in the political process. The proposed OSHCA constitutions says: "5.1 Membership shall be open to persons interested in furthering the objects of OSHCA and shall consist of anyone who has accepted the premise of OSHCA’s Vision, Mission Statements and Principles by indicating such acceptance via OSHCA’s Internet Registration process." Also implicit in Section 7.4 are the provisions that members must *abide* by the constitution and not bring the organisation into disrepute. Nowhere does it say that members must agree with every last provision or letter of the constitution, just that they must abide by it. Members must, however, accept the OSHCA vision, mission statement and principles. (3) The minutes of the inaugural meeting, the constitution and other documents, the details of the initial office bearers and protem committee, and the details of all the founding members would then be submitted to the relevant national or state authority to allow the organisation to be formally registered. (4) Subsequent meetings would be called to organise elections after as suitable brief delay (to allow more members to join after some promotion and publicity about the organisation) for committee/board members and office bearers, and if members desire it, for modifications to the constitution. Non-members can lobby members to initiate or vote for motions to change the constitution, but can't do so themselves. It is fairly easy to see how the steps taken to found OSHCA as a formal organisation are analogous to the steps set out above, with the exception that the process of voting for or against the resolutions and the process of applying for membership have been conflated. I think that this collective mistake can be easily remedied by inviting a second round of founding membership applications using a form which makes the conditions for membership crystal clear. I think this can be done in the next day or so, since the planned date for submission of documents to the Malaysian authorities is not until 2nd May. If not, then people can still apply for membership prior to the first post-registration meeting. There are no special privileges or rights conferred by being a "founding" member, so joining as part of the inaugural meeting or joining after it but before the next meeting are functionally equivalent. So, there is no compulsion to vote "yes" to all the resolutions. Obviously if you vote "no" tot he resolution that OSHCA form as a formally registered society, then you are unlikely to want to become a member of such as society. With respect to the constitution, please note that the resolution on which you are asked to vote says: "Constitution A draft constitution, based on the 'Model Society Constitution' supplied by the Office of the Registrar of Societies, was tabled by the Protem Committee for discussion and adoption. 1.6 It was resolved that:- The Constitution, as discussed, amended and to be attached to the minutes of this Inaugural Meeting, be presented in full for signing by two Office Bearers of OSHCA for submission to the Registrar of Societies." Thus you are not asked to indicate that you agree with the every last aspect of the constitution, merely that it is good enough for submission tot he Registrar of Societies in Malaysia. It is a subtle but important distinction. I hope that the foregoing clarifies things a bit. Collective apologies for any confusion caused by the process, but as Nandalal said, none of us have (successfully) organised a formally registered society via virtual meetings previously, and processes which would be clear or easily explained in a face-to-face meeting can appear rather opaque through the fog of asynchronous email. Tim C > On Apr 25, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Nandalal Gunaratne wrote: > >> >> Fred Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Fred, >> >> There was enough time given for dissent/discussion. Molly asked >> everyone repeatedly to comment on the issues. We can't wait for >> ever, therefore a time limit was set, and the FINAL draft was set >> down. Therfore there was really nothing to disagree about! >> >> Perhaps, Molly should have removed the disagree part and just left >> everyone to approve. >> >> Will sent his comments once everything was done and over with. >> Where was he all that time? His late comments would only disrupt a >> process set in motion in a very democratic manner. >> >> If you cannot understand this situation, by all means wait in the >> sidelines and join when you are happy to do so. Nobody will stop >> you. See the democracy at work ? >> :-) >> >> Hope to see you back soon, dissenting and arguing! >> >> Nandalal >> OSCHA committee, >> It is a little troublesome that Will's membership is being >> discarded along with his comments. Essentially the arguments of the >> committee is "lets get it working and then worry about getting it >> right". >> This is fine but I, at least, will have to wait to see it working >> right >> before I can toss my hat in the ring. This is not so much a >> criticism, >> perhaps the committee has the right idea! But until there is an >> entity that >> merits trust (which means having a forum for dissenting >> supporters) then I >> will have to stay on the sidelines with (apparently) Will. >> >> -- >> Fred Trotter >> SynSeer, Consultant >> http://www.fredtrotter.com >> http://www.synseer.com >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS >> >> >> Visit your group "openhealth" on the web. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of >> Service. >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone >> call rates. >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > [wr] > > - - - - - - - - > > will ross > project manager > mendocino informatics > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > ukiah, california 95482 usa > 707.462.6369 [office] > 707.462.5015 [fax] > www.minformatics.com > > - - - - - - - - > > "Getting people to adopt common standards is impeded by patents." > Sir Tim Berners-Lee, BCS, 2006 > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
