Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done.

[home]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:47:46AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Still want to look at Greenpeace's formulation more, but I think an
> association rather than a charity will be the way forwards here.
> FSFE-UK will be a charity anyway, for donations of the tax money.

Yep. The association is more likely to be politcal, so can't really be a
charity, and vice-versa for FSFE-UK.

> There will be an executive of 8 members.  They will be selected by an
> annual poll of all membership by single transferable vote according to
> the rules of the Electoral Reform Society.

STV is a good system, although I'm not thoroughly familiar with it (our
Student's Union used Alternative Transferable Vote - I can't remember what
the difference was, possibly something to do with quorum?)

> The executive will conduct its business by accepting or rejecting
> resolutions once a month.  Resolutions may make any decision which
> does not contradict this charter.  Resolutions will be accepted or
> rejected by a vote of the executive.  In the event of a tie, the chair
> has the casting vote.

Sounds like a TUC conference :S So long as we don't have to suffer
composites ;) I would possibly think about a longer time-frame though - I
think every quarter is more likely to work better, esp. if we set ourselves
a decent quorum. The Chair would also have the power to call EGM as wall as
GM, so it shouldn't prevent the association acting. But I think once a month
is too possibly too much! I suppose it depends on the number and frequencies
of resolutions though. 

> UK Association for the Freedoms of Software?  Or should it be British?

Personally, I think British, even though there ought to be a FSFE-UK. The UK
is a governmental region, and the FSFE chapter ought to cover all of it.
However, it's not a politically flat region, and possibly having a number of
associations in the UK might make more sense (Free Software Assoc. of
Northern Ireland, etc.). The conclusion of that argument is that we should
have an English Association, but I think that's possibly too far. 

> The charter intentionally leaves most things open to resolution by
> resolution.  Hopefully the executive will remember that doing stupid
> things will result in a loss of membership and the slow death of the
> association ;-)

It probably depends on how resolutions are submitted. Generally, they should
be proposed by a member and seconded by another. A reasonable rule might be
that the proposer and seconder may not both be on the executive, but in
practice that probably wouldn't work well. Obviously, the returning officer
/ chair would also need to make sure the proposal was valid (didn't
contradict the charter), so I would hope we wouldn't do anything silly by
virtue of that fact. 

> > MEET FACE-TO-FACE
> tba
> 
> > FORM THE ORGANISATION
> tbc

I think these are both very important, and the order in which you've written
them is probably chronalogically correct :)

Cheers,

Alex.