Hi Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au> writes: > First, happy Swiss day for everyone... > >>> >>> b) still proceed to have a lawyer review it, or just accept it as is? >> >> If we can get a pro-bono lawyer to have a look that would be great. If >> not, I think we can also go over it once more ourselves and afterwards >> accept it. > > I will make some more inquiries - did anyone else come across such > options? Thanks for your effort. > >>> >>> c) setting a date for a General Meeting between now and Christmas, to >>> accept the translation? >> >> I'm not sure if it's worth the effort unless we don't need a general >> meeting for other reasons (like DC13). If it's the only topic I would >> just do that at the AGM in 2013. This does still not exclude further >> modifications at the same AGM if someone wants to propose them. > > I think having a specific 15 minute General Meeting is a good idea for > two reasons: > > a) it means the translation can be accepted without any debate about > other possible changes - if we debate the translation AND other changes > at the AGM, it will be more confusing and/or time consuming At least the confusion can be avoided by sepaating the two items in the agenda and having a strict charing during the meeting to avoid mixing the two things. > > b) it means that if people want to propose any changes for the 2013 AGM, > they can do so without any uncertainty about the translation, because > the translation will already be in full effect I agree. On the other hand I expect the translation to be quite uncontroversial after it's been discussed at length on the mailinglist. So I think it's faesible to draft possible changes based on the draft translation. This has to be weighted against the increased effort to organize two meetings. > >>> >>> For step (c), I would suggest the possibility of having the general >>> meeting at Vaumarcus, possibly even at `Le Camp' - has everyone already >>> seen the venue? >>> >>> Would it be feasible and/or worthwhile to spend an afternoon there to >>> `test drive' the venue? Or just travel there for a quick tour, and then >>> have the general meeting in a local pub or restaurant? >> >> At least Luca, myself and Didier have seen the venue. I guess at some >> point others from the dc13 localteam want to see it too. But I'm not >> sure if we want to combine this with a debian.ch general meeting. But >> I'm not against the idea either as long as I don't have to organize the >> location. > > I would welcome feedback from other people - it doesn't need to be > Vaumarcus, but I am curious to visit the place I agree that another visit to Vaumarcus should be organized for those interested in helping to organize DC13. I'm not sure if mixing this with debian.ch bylaws related things is a good idea. I would prefer a virtual meeting or a more central location for the debian.ch bylaws meeting. The visit to Vaumarcus would ideally wait a bit until the negotations with the venue are a bit more advanced. > >>> >>> Another alternative is to have the GM together with a bug squashing >>> party. >> >> Sounds like a better idea to me. >> >>> >>> The only formal agenda item for the GM would be the acceptance of the >>> translation, so the official part of the meeting should happen quickly, >>> but it will need to have lots of people attending to make it valid. >> >> Why? The current bylaws don't have any special majority requirements for >> changes to the bylaws. So a simple majority of every member that attends >> is enough. > > Technically, that may be correct. I don't know if there is anything in > the Swiss laws about this. But even so, it is always nice to have as > many members as possible to make the decision `feel' definite. I agree that the more members attend the better. > > The document doesn't say anything about whether members can participate > and/or vote by telephone/conference call. Given that this effort has > the endorsement of the 2012 AGM, and the type of document is better > discussed by email (and diff), if there is consensus on the mailing > list, then a GM could maybe even be made by phone. I'm fine with any form of meeting (online or in real life) where votes can be validated in a more or less verifyable way (eg. gpg signed mails). One possible form would be an IRC meeting where after the meeting the minutes are GPG singed by all attendees to state that they are correct. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~
Attachment:
pgpS5m0zScWFe.pgp
Description: PGP signature