Re: [Debconf-team] About the DC15 entity and authority (was: DebConf 15 Legal Entity)
* martin f krafft (madduck@debconf.org) [140417 08:37]:
> also sprach Andreas Barth <aba@ayous.org> [2014-04-17 08:24 +0200]:
> > Just speaking about theoretical things, but: With your current
> > draft the board could kick out all people having a different
> > opinion, and if the general assembly would vote about the appeals
> > anyone who disagrees with the board cannot vote because their
> > membership is pending. So I think people should still be able to
> > vote on the appeals unless they're finally expelled.
>
> Valid point, thanks, except that the ability of the board to expel
> a member is limited to instances when the member harms the public
> perception of the association, doesn't pay (if there were membership
> fees) or there's another "important reason". You are right, the
> board could abuse this power, but then it probably wouldn't stand
> very long and get replaced by the members' assembly, if they don't
> agree that the reason was "important".
If all persons who disagree with the board is expelled before, the
assembly could consist of only very few people. I had seen that
before, such a situation is not nice.
So, I think this is just a bug in the procedures that could be
exploited, and also where there is a fix. How important the bug is is
up to the debconf15 team (as always with security bugs - how dangerous
it is depends much on the local setup, and in some cases bugs are best
only ignored, and in others bug fixes with high effort being applied;
IMHO in this case applying the fix doesn't harm).
> This discussion does make me think that maybe we should *not* all
> become members, but just keep the association "on the side" and
> portray a clear understanding among DC15 orga that it only exists
> for legal purposes and membership does not make anyone any more
> special.
My recommendation (based on past observations e.g. from the Bürgernetz
München) is to have an equally applied standard on who should be
accepted as a member, otherwise this could lead to unnecessary
frictions (independend of how you agree now that this should be
handled). This doesn't necessarily need to involve many people as
members, but it should be clear for everyone why someone is accepted
as member, and someone else is not.
Andi
Reply to: