James Livingston doctau at mac.com
Thu Jul 30 10:22:30 UTC 2009

On 30/07/2009, at 12:46 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'd rather view this as a moral thing than a legal issue.

I agree with this. Provided people standing for election disclose any  
relevant affiliations, which includes things other than their  
employer, such as that they are a member of some geographic society or  
what have you, I don't see a problem with simply letting the  
membership vote.

What specifically would we be trying to achieve by limiting the board  
members? If it's to stop a company turning evil and stealing all our  
data, we need to require that re-licensing of the data needs a vote of  
the membership (and obviously the same to change that rule).

If the board turns evil (one company or otherwise), the membership  
should be able to do something about it. I don't know how it works in  
the UK, but in Australia if you can get the requisite fraction of the  
membership to agree, you can force an Extraordinary General Meeting  
where the members can overrule the board decisions and remove them  
from office. If you can't get the requisite fraction of the membership  
to do that, then either the board isn't being evil, or they have  
stacked the membership - at which point, you have bigger problems.

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list