[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian.ch AGM - 2015-01-30 -> 2015-02-01 ?

Le mercredi, 3 décembre 2014, 09.15:48 Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> On 03/12/14 08:26, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > It does indeed clash [with FOSDEM], and that's certainly 
> > unfortunate. That said, it's too late to change the date (of the
> > week-end I mean, not of FOSDEM). Also, neither swiss law or our
> > articles of association impose a quorum, and the AGM can validly
> > take place given two weeks of advance notice per email to all
> > members.
> Technically that sounds OK.
> I personally don't know if I'm going to FOSDEM yet but if I don't then
> I may be able to make the trip over to the BSP.  I notice that it is
> about 3.5 hours each way for somebody from Zurich and it is 50 CHF
> each way from Zurich with the half price card.

Note that the BSP's travel and accommodation might be eligible for 
sponsoring (see wiki page), contrary to FOSDEM attendance, as far as I 
know. (AGM participation is probably in a gray area, and I'd err on the 
side of assuming it's not eligible).

> Regardless of the Swiss law and the constitution, it is also important
> that debian.ch is now a Debian trust organization.

I'll note out of completeness that debian.ch has always been a /de 
facto/ TO: accepting donations for the Debian project, reimbursing 
sprint participations as well as organizing a DebConf have all been made 
without that status.

> To maintain the highest level of confidence in this system it is
> probably important to have strong attendance by local DDs at any
> formal meeting such as the AGM so if enough people say they can come
> then maybe it can be formally announced as the AGM date, before the
> notice deadline and if not it can just be a BSP.

I've put some thoughts to it, and I now tend to agree: iff the planned 
attendance to the debian.ch AGM is too low (saturday end-of-day, 31 
January), we should be finding another time-space. Decoupling the AGM 
from the BSP doesn't endanger much the BSP IMHO (and I'll be going 
anyway :-) ).

What do others think?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: