Hello Gianluca, Le Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:50:28 +0100, Gianluca Turconi <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Il 14/11/2010 14.29, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: > > >> 1) Quotation from the draft: "The Engineering Steering Committee > >> (ESC) is made of developers who are coopted (i.e, there's no need > >> for election and there can be as many members of the ESC as > >> needed)." > >> > >> question: *must* these developers be Foundation *members* at the > >> same time too? > > > > Your question is giving me the opportunity to clarify something > > which is in the bylaws but it needs to be clearly written: the > > foundation itself (the legal entity) will not/shall not have members > > per se. > > OK. It works like in Italy. > > So, we're now *formally* speaking about a real Foundation, not an > "Association" with members. Yes. Although this notion fades away as soon as you're into an Anglo-Saxon context. But so far, we intend to have a real foundation, if we can't, we'll still keep the "formal setting" and concept of a foundation. > > Therefore, if I'm not wrong, there is a whole part of the bylaws that > is "informal" (membership, board election, ...), this is to say it is > not legally enforceable in a country like France or Italy. Or it is > partially enforceable only. Yes, and this is why we named them "community bylaws" and not a "Foundation bylaws" or "statutes". So this document is what we do on a daily basis, not an establishment of an entity. But we do intend to follow these bylaws, as they will be the one ruling how we work and collaborate. > > That's just fine, IMO, as far as the (individual) "members" exactly > know what their *real*, legally enforceable rights are. In a > sentence: where the Foundation ends and the Community begins. Yes. > > Corporations and administrations understand this kind of stuff better > than individual persons. ;-) > > >> possible issue: sponsored developers can be coopted by other > >> developers and their employer can gain more powers/rights other > >> than the seat in the Advisory Board. > > > > Yes it is a risk, but then there is also social pressure, that works > > in two ways. What would you suggest ? > > A balance of powers. :) > > This is to say: both BoD and ESC with a fixed number of members > should be elected from "members" and "members-developers" and a > maximum % of those seats reserved to main sponsors. AB with its > advisory role remains for *all* sponsors. Well, I don't wish to discriminate that much; see my proposed provision for the three members of the BoD as being employees of the same company. As for the ESC, I do believe that (aside the solution discussed for the Chairman's election) we should thus have either a limit on its members with equal or similar provision put on the number of employees of a same corporation, and a specific number of members (we can have a variation and a ratio if needed). best; -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to [email protected] for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
