First off, we actually aren't required to have a voting system outside of the directors. That is because wesnoth isn't a traded corporation which has responsibility to shareholders. There isn't any provision in law about whether we are responsible to an larger body of individuals. These are established as bylaws during the first meeting of the directors. The bylaws may include how positions are appointed, procedures for elections, term limits, ect. That is basically what the wider voting would deal with (as proposed), not on the decisions concerning the operation of the foundation. The authority for these decisions would remain with directors.
As I mentioned in the other email, this is unlikely to change much in practice. I doubt decisions on programming would ever come up to the board for discussion... that really is the development community's domain. Issues like spending and the like would, but in reality I don't see how there couldn't be alot of community participation in these sort of decisions regardless. Its not like after incorporation the board of directors are going to start implementing things differently than before, against the wishes of the entire community. On 16-Jul-09, at 1:56 PM, John McNabb wrote: > > I strongly suspect that having an informal voting system is not > sufficient for any corporation in the US or Europe. Typically > corporations are required by law to have very specific rules > regarding membership and voting. It varies from state to state, and > what types of voting systems are legal may vary (A stalinistic > dictatorship might be legal if it is in the rules of the > corporation, I don't know), but the rules generally must be publicly > available and the organization MUST follow the rules if the > organization/directors do not want to be subject to law suits where > they are held personally liable for "misuse" of funds, even if they > are using the money in the same way as it currently is being used. > It might be possible to establish rules for online meeting (say in > IRC), but I would strongly encourage whoever is forming this to > double check what is permissible in Texas when it come to corporate > governance. The definition of who is a voting member of the > corporation will undoubtedly also be very important and rules on > what is considered a quorom (the minimum necessary number of members > required to be present to be able to make decisions as a > deliberative assembly on behalf of the organization). > > Parliamentary procedure is used in almost all corporations because > it was developed precisely to make the voting procedures as easy as > possible while ensuring both majority rule on any given issue and > the ability of minority interests to express their desent. It need > not be tedious if properly handled and can make meetings very > efficient as any contentious issue gets sent to committee where all > interested parties hash out a compromise to bring back to the > general assembly. _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
