[Osmf-talk] Community vote (was: AoA Discussion)

[James Livingston]

On 19/07/2011, at 5:15 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Such actions usually require a certain percentage of members to agree. Currently, if something goes really really wrong, I could conceivably look at the members list, call 30 of them on the phone, convince them to share my concern, and voila, I'd have 10% of members on my side. (Needless to say I would need a good reason that convinces them but it is conceivable.) - If we had 3000 members instead of 300, that would become near impossible; the board would become ever more unassailable.

Rather than a percentage, a few associations I've been part of have used an absolute "N members". That however has problems when the organisation grows, as increasingly small minorities can force EGMs. There have been cases in Australia where large companies had to hold EGMs at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars because 0.01% of the shareholders wanted to pull a political stunt.

Maybe something like the "square-root" rule could be used, which means you'd need 18 people with 300 members (6%) and 55 with 3000 (1.8%), so it does increase but not linearly.


-- 
James