Talk:EU Articles of Association Pass 2
Please assemble your comments under your user name.
For example:
JohnnyMnemonic
2.24 substitute "with approval from the Board" with "subject to the approval of the Board"
3.6 delete "in association with the community" - this is not really a community issue.
ENDS
While the motivation for removing the distinction between normal and associate members is clear (as it was just a workaround the UK legal requirements for a public member registry), there is no motivation given for dropping the corporate membership, nor a discussion of how the membership fees from corporate members will be replaced.
1.1 using OpenStreetMap as the name is not a good idea, in particular the community does not want to refer to the new organisation as "OpenStreetMap" (just as it does not do so for the OSMF). As I suggested on the forum, something like the "International OpenStreetMap Association" or similar would work better. But obviously this needs to be discussed with the lawyers.
ENDS
Fizzie41 (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Having been on similar Association boards, & having seen the problems that they can cause, I would strongly urge not to allow proxy voting at all!
ENDS
--Nakaner (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2.8 What happens if a member has a positive balance on their account but the membership ends due to death or being cancelled by the member? I suggest that any overpaid membership fees cannot be paid back to the member in case of death or cancellation of the membership by the member.
3.2 I suggest to lower the quorum for an extraordinary general assembly (against the will of the board) because we have many members. In August 2012, the Foundation had 409 members in total, i.e. one needed 41 members signing for an extraordinary general assembly. After introduction of the associate membership, normal members dropped to 142 (plus 376 associate members). In March 2024, we had 977 normal and 1345 associate members (2322 members in total). Two percent of 2322 is 46.
3.6 "The proposing members must each be eligible to vote on day of the General Meeting." This leads to a circular reasoning: The validity of the 20 signatures depends on the date of the general assembly but that date might not be determined at the time when the members propose the resolution. I suggest to drop the requirement. Checking if they are members at the date they submit the proposal might be easier than checking it for any date in the future (some might not have even paid the fees for the next year …). We don't need to raise the bar for a proposal still requiring a majority at the general assembly.
3.6 "The Board may decide to not include the proposed resolution in the agenda. Any such refusals must be reported to the General Meeting." What's the motivation behind this wording? Why should members have the right to propose a resolution if the board can just ignore it?
3.7 Because OSM is an international organisation, a pure in-person general assembly would exclude many members, e.g. those not being able to travel to Belgium due to financial or legal (visa) constraints. I don't understand the blue comment completely. Does this mean that members not participating in-place cannot vote? Under these circumstances, proxy voting is a must-have.
ENDS