[Osmf-talk] AoA changes and new fee waiver for this year's AGM

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 09 November 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Dear members,
>
> based on the feedback in this thread we have made a few changes, most
> notably:
>
> * make sure to speak of "periods" not years
> * flesh out the term limits into a staggered vote of (a) fixed terms
> but no term limits; (b) term limits but resettable; (c) strict term
> limits. Voters can now choose what kind of term limits they want, if
> any.

Frankly this is fairly disappointing:

* i think i made a point well supported by facts and logic that in terms
of fairness and balance w.r.t. times served on the board so far (with
term lengths varying between one and four years) it would make much
more sense to specify term limits through absolute time served (i.e.
months) instead of terms.  The wording has now been changed into the
opposite direction (specifying everything in relative terms instead of
months) without any arguments and reasoning on side of the board.

* The way votes 4, 5 and 6 have been staggered (support for vote 6 only
having an effect if vote 4 and 5 also pass) seems politically highly
biased and communicates to the members quite clearly that the board has
a preference against strict term limits.  For the sake of board
credibility i would strongly recommend changing that.  I know the board
probably thinks this is a way to do this cleanly but you could equally
do it the other way round:

- vote 4: strict term limits
- vote 5: modify the term limits from vote 4 with a 'lex Mikel'
- vote 6: remove the term limits from vote 4/5 and only maintain the
changed fix term length scheme

or at least modify the current votes in a strict order of text
additions:

- vote 4: add fixed term lengths
- vote 5: add term limits
- vote 6: add the 'lex Mikel' exception

But even then technically implementing term limits would not technically
depend on moving to a fixed term length scheme so connecting the two
votes is somewhat questionable.

Remember there is a 75 percent threshold for special resolutions so
there is a high likeliness that these resolutions will not pass besides
there being a clear majority among the members in support of them (as
it has been when we voted on term limits before).  Doing your best to
allow members to express their wishes in votes on resolutions in a
clear and non-obfuscated way is the least you can do to minimize the
legitimacy problems resulting from the above.

Apart from that i wonder if the board can collectively as the board
propose resolutions for a general meeting without having a board
decision according to the rules of order.  Since the board has made
decisions without following the rules of order in the past (remember
Crimea?) this might seem a fairly pointless question but i wanted to
mention it none the less.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/