PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap (2nd round)

hi pg-eu !

Let's do another recap and see if we have some kind of a consensus here.

I'll try to sum the last 50 messages and propose the best solutions to the 5
remaining issues

But before that let me give some practical information. The process of writing
statutes started 3 months ago. If you haven't read the draft, please take
some time to do it before asking questions :

http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes

There have been lots of discussions about this draft, that i've tried to sum
up on that page :

http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes_discuss

The statutes will be signed by the members of Boards of Directors, that we
will elect at FOSDEM (Bruxels, Feb 24). Only the french version of the
statutes is legally bounding, so he have to translate the statutes in french
before FOSDEM. I need at least 5 days for the translation+proof-reading,
which means we must agree on a definitive version before Feb 16.

Yes we only have 12 days to find a consensus :-)

Note that if we fail the constitution of PostgreSQL Europe won't be stopped,
but FOSDEM is really a great deadline and if we can't reach an agreement
before it , we might lose a lot of time and remain stuck into this creation
process for a long time.

Please also note, that the elections rules ( who can vote, etc. ) are not
specified by the statutes. These rules are discussed in another thread.

ok here's the 5 remaining issues :

> 1- Membership fee ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : No membership fee for people
> c : Optional membership fee for people

Consensus seems to be ;

"Don't write any reference to a membership fee in the statutes".
People can get into the association simply by filling and sending an
membership request . The Board of Directors has to approve the membership
resquest for it to be valid.

Solution : 1b

>
> 2- Membership ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : Automatic membership for users of local groups
> c : Optional membership for users of local groups
>

From my point of view we can find a agreement with this rule :

When a local group wants to join the European group, it provides the
list of its members who are ok to be also member of the pg-eu association.
These persons become "automatically'" members of PostgreSQL

The actual allows this, no need to change them.

solution : 2a

> 3- Quorum ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : Lower the quorum
> c : Drop the quorum
>

That one is tough !

It seems to me that we can find an agreement by lowering the quorum to 25%.
When the quorum is not reached, we organize a second quorum-free GA within 30
days where people can vote by electronic means ( e-mail, IRC ).

In other word, if the GA is composed of less than 1/4 of the members,
decisions must be submitted to the members by electronic voting during the
following month.

solution : 3b

> 4- Takeover protection ?
> a : Keep statutes as they are
> b : Add more criterium for the member to satisfy
>

Most people seems to say : "Let's keep things simple"
The statutes already provides features against evil members.

solution : 4a

> 5- Companies : sponsors or members ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : Companies are sponsors
>

Companies are sponsors.
Only individuals can be members

solution ; 5b

I'm conscious that these solutions are not perfect and that some of you might
object on some details.

However if you're ok with these propositions ,can you reply "+1" to this
message. If you're not feel free to respond with detailled
counter-propositions and if possible the sentences and paragraphs that you
want to add or remove from the statutes.

Regards

--
damien clochard
http://dalibo.org | http://dalibo.com