[steering-discuss] Preparing elections for the membership committee

'Freezing' the membership does not necessarily means stop processing
applications, but just that the list of eligible member for the
election is 'frozen' at that date.
The list of member can still grow, but people that get membershp after
the freeze date are not eligible to vote in that election.

Norbert

Hi,

-------- Original-Nachricht --------

Datum: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:29:34 -0500
Von: Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com>

>
> We had some discussion, if we should freeze again the membership
process.
> BoD should decide on that (I personally would not like to have again
some
> weeks where we do not accept new members, at the other hand it might be
easy
> to challenge the vote, if we don't freeze.)

'Freezing' the membership does not necessarily means stop processing
applications, but just that the list of eligible member for the
election is 'frozen' at that date.

That's what I meant with "take a snapshot".

For the BoD elections we agreed to not process membership applications
from start of nomination period until end of elections. Means, MC will
start to accept new members next monday again.

regards,

André

Norbert Thiebaud wrote:

'Freezing' the membership does not necessarily means stop processing
applications, but just that the list of eligible member for the
election is 'frozen' at that date.
The list of member can still grow, but people that get membershp after
the freeze date are not eligible to vote in that election.

I'd still suggest to suspend MC work during that time - sure, people
can still apply for membership, and sure, MC members can send out
receival confirmations. But since it's the very MC that is then
standing for election, I think it is standard practice that this
body cease to make decisions during that time.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hello,

I'd still suggest to suspend MC work during that time - sure, people
can still apply for membership, and sure, MC members can send out
receival confirmations. But since it's the very MC that is then
standing for election, I think it is standard practice that this
body cease to make decisions during that time.

I second that. It's not that I do not trust our MC, but I think it would be "cleaner" if we didn't have application processing during that time.

Florian

Hello,

as we have discussed previously, the paragraphs about the membership
committee in the current statutes draft differ in some points from what
we have in the bylaws. I hope, I can provide a translation of the
relevant paragraphs early next week. But I want to have some discussion
on the matter already in the first BoD meeting.

a short summary from the last call:

- For the legal set-up of the foundation, we need the elected names. This would not happen before December 6th.

- In case we have authority approval for the foundation set-up before, this would delay the set-up until the 6th. (NB: When we will have authority approval is hard to predict, but more on that soon on a blogpost.)

- For the inital set-up of the foundation, the founder (German association of FrODeV) is free to name anyone for the MC. They will of course stick to the voting decision. As soon as the foundation is in place, however, we have to stick to the election rules set forth in our statues, and they foresee a 45 day advance notification period of the elections.

- In a nutshell, this means: We either can decide to nominate the current MC as the first MC and have a "gentlemen's agreement" that they step back as soon as the foundation is in place, leading to new elections about 45 days later on.

- Or we indeed wait until the current election is done and nominate those voted on for the first MC.

Although it might mean a delay, I tend to go for the latter option. This is much "cleaner", and as we don't know if we will have authority confirmation before the 6th, we're basically talking about a delay of 2-4 weeks, so be it.

Thoughts?

Florian

Hi,

Hello,

as we have discussed previously, the paragraphs about the membership

committee in the current statutes draft differ in some points from what we
have in the bylaws. I hope, I can provide a translation of the relevant
paragraphs early next week. But I want to have some discussion on the
matter already in the first BoD meeting.

a short summary from the last call:

- For the legal set-up of the foundation, we need the elected names. This
would not happen before December 6th.

- In case we have authority approval for the foundation set-up before,
this would delay the set-up until the 6th. (NB: When we will have authority
approval is hard to predict, but more on that soon on a blogpost.)

- For the inital set-up of the foundation, the founder (German association
of FrODeV) is free to name anyone for the MC. They will of course stick to
the voting decision. As soon as the foundation is in place, however, we
have to stick to the election rules set forth in our statues, and they
foresee a 45 day advance notification period of the elections.

- In a nutshell, this means: We either can decide to nominate the current
MC as the first MC and have a "gentlemen's agreement" that they step back
as soon as the foundation is in place, leading to new elections about 45
days later on.

IMHO, I don't see why can we not adopt this option. The current MC proved
that was (and is) impartial and deeply focused on meritocracy, essential
factors for an MC.

For me, the current MC proved that's fully deserving of this gentlemen's
agreement.

I vote for this option.

Best,

David

Hi,

IMHO, I don't see why can we not adopt this option. The current MC proved
that was (and is) impartial and deeply focused on meritocracy, essential
factors for an MC.

For me, the current MC proved that's fully deserving of this gentlemen's
agreement.

I have full trust in the current MC, no doubts about that. The issue that makes me favor the other option (wait until the new MC is in place) is that it would avoid having elections very soon after the legal set-up, which is rather time consuming.

Florian

IMHO, I don't see why can we not adopt this option. The current MC proved
that was (and is) impartial and deeply focused on meritocracy, essential
factors for an MC.

For me, the current MC proved that's fully deserving of this gentlemen's
agreement.

With the caveat that Thorsten must resign as MC-deputy, since one
cannot be BoD and MC member at once.

I have full trust in the current MC, no doubts about that. The issue that makes me favor the other option (wait until the new MC is in place) is that it would avoid having elections very soon after the legal set-up, which is rather time consuming.

Maybe we can do with the current MC as 'initially designated' for the
first 6 month of the foundation and organize a MC election then, since
it would be a good idea to have BoD election and MC election somewhat
separated to avoid 'oversight'/'membership' issues.

Norbert

Hi,

Maybe we can do with the current MC as 'initially designated' for the
first 6 month of the foundation and organize a MC election then, since
it would be a good idea to have BoD election and MC election somewhat
separated to avoid 'oversight'/'membership' issues.

Seems reasonable to me - as long as there is a substitude for Thorsten and all of the other MC members agree to be on duty for another 6 months.

regards,

André

Hi,

Hi,

Maybe we can do with the current MC as 'initially designated' for the
first 6 month of the foundation and organize a MC election then, since
it would be a good idea to have BoD election and MC election somewhat
separated to avoid 'oversight'/'membership' issues.

Seems reasonable to me - as long as there is a substitude for Thorsten and
all of the other MC members agree to be on duty for another 6 months.

Agreed on both.

Kind regards
Sophie

Hi,

With the caveat that Thorsten must resign as MC-deputy, since one
cannot be BoD and MC member at once.

good point, indeed. Thorsten, in case you get voted as election officer, would you step back from your MC deputy role?

Florian

Florian Effenberger wrote:

>With the caveat that Thorsten must resign as MC-deputy, since one
>cannot be BoD and MC member at once.

good point, indeed. Thorsten, in case you get voted as election
officer, would you step back from your MC deputy role?

Hi Florian, all,

yes indeed, as a board member, I resign as Fridrich's MC deputy.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Agreed. I too prefer this for two reasons:

  a) it -may- allow us to setup the foundation more quickly, at
     least we are not blocking on a fairly artificial timeline

  b) it adds a staggered election into the process from founding,
     such that we are not electing the MC and the Board at the
     same time - which IMHO is critical anyway

  So - I too would prefer to stick with the MC we have, and elect it
shortly after founding.

  Then again - I'm agnostic on the point; if the founding is further
delayed, perhaps having an elected initial MC in place is fine.

  ATB,

    Michael.

Hello,

  a) it -may- allow us to setup the foundation more quickly, at
     least we are not blocking on a fairly artificial timeline

I think if so, it just would delay two weeks, IMHO noncritical after this amount of time.

  b) it adds a staggered election into the process from founding,
     such that we are not electing the MC and the Board at the
     same time - which IMHO is critical anyway

That's indeed a very good thing.

  So - I too would prefer to stick with the MC we have, and elect it
shortly after founding.

So, we have two choices:

1. Either vote now and have a newly voted-on MC for the legal setup.

2. Keep the existing MC and they do a gentleman's agreement to step back by let's say June or July 1st next year.

Legally, it's no problem, since the Founder (FrODeV) simply nominates those who should be in charge, for elections thereafter, however, the official voting rules in the statutes are enforced.

However, for #2, we need either a replacement for Thorsten and a decision by the BoD to go with less MC members (even with Thorsten's replacement, the current MC only has 3 members and two deputies, but we would need five plus two), or a more MC members.

André, can you talk to the MC tonight and see what they prefer and make a proposal? If the BoD then votes on it, we should be good to go.

Florian

Hi,

to sum things up as I have an impression they are diesred:

- We would nominate Thorsten as election officer (who then would step back as MC deputy),
- and we would like to elect 5 members and 2 deputies in the new MC,
- and we don't want to freeze membership applications.

Please, all BoD members, cast your vote on these topics in case you haven't yet.

What we should agree on soon is whether to run the vote just now and wait with the legal set-up until the Foundation is in existence, or whether we take the existing MC (needing a deputy for Thorsten, since he's in the BoD already) and have a gentlemen's agreement that they step back on let's say effective July 1st.

I am in favor of this solution. André, did the MC discuss that during yesterday's call? In case we go with the July-1st-solution, all current MC members need to agree to be willing to serve in the legal body of the future Foundation and be mentioned in the founding documents.

I'm pushing here a bit since November 4th, on which your timeline is based, is close.

Florian

Hi,

to sum things up as I have an impression they are diesred:

- We would nominate Thorsten as election officer (who then would step back as MC deputy),

+1

- and we would like to elect 5 members and 2 deputies in the new MC,

+1

- and we don't want to freeze membership applications.

+1

- We would nominate Thorsten as election officer (who then would step
back as MC deputy),

  +1

- and we would like to elect 5 members and 2 deputies in the new MC,

  +1

- and we don't want to freeze membership applications.

  +1

we take the existing MC (needing a deputy for Thorsten, since
he's in the BoD already) and have a gentlemen's agreement that they step
back on let's say effective July 1st.

  +1

  :-)

    Michael.

Florian Effenberger wrote:

- and we would like to elect 5 members and 2 deputies in the new MC,

+1

- and we don't want to freeze membership applications.

+1 (going with the flow :))

take the existing MC (needing a deputy for Thorsten,
since he's in the BoD already) and have a gentlemen's agreement that
they step back on let's say effective July 1st.

+1

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi :slight_smile:
I have assumed that Thorsten has not stepped down from MC or something. Whatever he was stepping down from was in order for him to be able to do some work that he is being blocked from doing anyway right? So until the job needs to be started i think Thorsten is still on whatever it was he was going to step down from.

Sorry, i just got a bit muddled.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

- We would nominate Thorsten as election officer (who then would step
back as MC deputy),

+1

- and we would like to elect 5 members and 2 deputies in the new MC,

+1

- and we don't want to freeze membership applications.

+1

we take the existing MC (needing a deputy for Thorsten, since
he's in the BoD already) and have a gentlemen's agreement that they step
back on let's say effective July 1st.

OK