I rather get a queasy feeling thinking that Google might get excluded simply because it happens to reject the application of the president's sister-in-law. So, I'm rather in favour of the general assembly voting on that. (I'm just not sure if it has to be a unimous vote then etc.)
Pragmatically, I can't see any reason either at the moment why anyone would be excluded. (Nope, not even Google.) So let's deal with it when there is a case and keep the AoA simple for the moment.
As for not paying dues: what do you think about adding a clause that membership ceases automatically if not payed? Is it difficult? It would it make it easier for members and the association. (I don't know about you but I'm notoriously bad at remembering to cancel my memberships. And that is why I'm normally relucant to join any association which does not cancel membership automatically on non-payment.)
Sarah
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 11:39:45PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
Well except for not paying the membership dues (rather frequent), I don't believe I've ever actually seen such a clause invoked.
Essentially it's a trade-off between being fair to the (ex)-member and avoiding endless battles. I don't have strong feelings about the issue (see above). Just stuff like "verein- widriges Verhalten" is just so undefined that trying to expel a member for it gives me a real queasy feeling in my stomach.
Lets turn the question around: would anybody have a problem with google becoming a member? And what level of competitive behaviour would start causing a problem? Would you want to start arguing about it with a google representative in front of the general assembly (it is extremely unlikely that google would)? Or would you rather have the board handle it?
My apologies to google, they are just a convenient potential BöFei example.
Simon
Am 05.07.2011 22:38, schrieb Sarah Hoffmann:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:52:27AM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
Am 05.07.2011 10:19, schrieb Arthur Bonino:
- Ausschluss: 'Grundlos finde ich sehr schwach
'vereins-widriges Verhalten' (Gegen-Interessen) ...?
It's done this way because of
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/210/a72.html 2nd paragraph
What about option 3: "If nothing is mentioned then exclusion can only be done per decision by the association and for important reasons."
Then we could get rid of the paragraph. Or do you think "decision by the association" might become too complicated?
Sarah _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch