[Osmf-talk] OSMF Articles of Association - Discussion on Revision for 2013 AGM

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.04.2013 15:02, schrieb Simon Poole:
> Am 05.04.2013 20:43, schrieb Paul Norman:
> ...........
>> There is an accountability issue with the 10% threshold if there are
>> unlisted members (not members as described in the companies act) as proposed
>> by (1). There would be no way to verify if you had or had not met the 10%
>> threshold.
> Yes, currently you could theoretically ask for the list of members and
> a) ask them for support, b) verify how many you need. If going forward
> we have "whatever they will be called" members were we are not required
> to hand out personal information you loose all of that. It clearly makes
> it more attractive not to have any such bar for the member resolutions.  
>
...............
I would like to quickly revisit one aspect of this topic before we move
on to the final two.

The major reason we want to introduce a new membership class is to avoid
having to provide full address details of our membership to all that
request them. Besides that this causes a conflict with UK data
protection regulation, it is in general something that we wouldn't want
to do.

If the new membership class is implemented without the legal requirement
to provide access to the list, we (as members) loose the right at the
same time to inspect the complete list of members (of all classes). This
clearly impacts the practicability of exercising the right to call a EGM
(assuming that we drop any hurdles for member resolutions) . Not to
mention that is makes it practical impossible to determine if a friendly
or unfriendly takeover has occurred.

My question is now: should we enshrine a right in the new AoAs that
members can inspect the full membership list, or not? As a consequence
joining the foundation would require explicit consent to the OSMF making
the list available in such form to the other members. It should be
considered that this may stop people from joining.

Simon