A couple of comment on my behalf on the Association process:
- I agree with datendelphin that we have been covering quite some grounds without any association for the past years. However, I see the advantage of having some sort of formalisation by means of an association: Dealing with other parties, such as governments, companies or other organisations is considerably easier if you have the osm_ch formally behind you rather than to to it on your own, personal behalf. For our internal organisation I would wish that the association somewhat increases transparency as well as responsibility of current activities (even if our mailing-list will probably remain the main communication channel). In the discussion it was stated that the association might become a local chapter of the OSMF. I currently only see limited advantages, while it seems to be associated with quite some additional tasks (eg reporting) if I look at the proposed agreement between OSMF and the local chapter [1]. So becoming a local chapter wouldn't be too high on my priority list. Therefore, I would support creating the association, but to keep it as lean as possible and the bylaws as flexible as possible.
On the bylaws:
Member exclusion procedure: I would opt to keep the para on the exclusion (no justification required) for the time being. In further stages we should think about a bit more elaborate, transparent (and fair) procedure. But I think this will be easier, once we have some experience. I don't think its appropriate to formulate some fancy exclusion procedures now, if we are not really aware of the problems and its context.
Purpose: - I agree with Simon, that the phrase on the type of activities (non-/commercial/profit) does not clearly refer to the people, projects, etc. To my interpretation, it rather refers to the support and promotion. Why not just drop the second sentence? - Simon suggests to drop the third sentence (The Association itself is not profit-oriented.) since no association may be profit-oriented according to Swiss law. If becoming a OSMF local chapter will be an option it might be not a bad idea to keep the sentence in, since OSMF puts quite some emphasis on "non-profit" (whatever this means), see the preamble in [1]. Additionally, it might not hurt to keep it in, in order to indicate that we are not an industry association or something similar (as stated by Simon).
General assembly: - Let's assume the AGM takes place within the first half of the year, e.g. on 15 May. Does it make sense to approve a budget of the current year of which already more than four months have passed?
The auditors: - A check based upon random sampling is to be conducted. Shouldn't this check be part of the financial report, and thus the bylaws should refer to it?
Liability: - Reading the respective article [2] of the ZGB, it seems to me that this section is not required at all.
That's it for the moment
Marc
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Agreement [2] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/210/a75a.html
On 05.07.2011, at 22:38, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
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