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

[Chris Fleming]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> 
> 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.

It's an interesting question, because I think that it is important the a list of members is available.

The act only requires the list is inspectable (I assume by turning up at the headquarters and demanding to see it). My feeling is that a new membership class isn't really required. 

But we should be more expicit when people join; that the membership list will be available for inspection by other memebers. I guess that a small number of people might object to this, but they can still donate. I think transparency in terms of who can vote is more important that the possibility of losing some memberships.

Cheers
Chris


-- 
e: me at chrisfleming.org
w: http://chrisfleming.org/