[oe] progress on OE organization issues

[Esben Haabendal]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Michael 'Mickey'
Lauer<mickey at vanille-media.de> wrote:
> One of the major purposes of the e.V. is being able to raise funds to give
> people a chance to improve the spots in OE where we are weak. The idea of a
> self-chosen membership fee was to invite companies who have a certain benefit
> from OE giving back in the form of tax-excemptible membership fees and
> donations.
>
> Most e.V. associations have the notion of 'active' and 'passive' members --
> both which are equal stakeholders interested in supporting the association
> through their contributions. I consider active members being the committers
> contributing through code, docs, etc. and passive members being the ones who
> rather want to contribute in monetary form.
>
> By being a member, you have the rights to vote when it comes to decisions that
> influence the future of the OE.

According to the babelfish translation of the statues, only active
members are given votes.

I believe it is worth noting that thit ties in the current SCM architecture into
the statues.  If someone decided to use a more distributed approach (fx. using
pull-requests instead of commit access), these rules would not give them
voting rights.  Any reason to involve SCM architecture into the statues?

I know this is not intentional, but it is worth correcting IMHO.

/Esben

-- 
Esben Haabendal, Senior Software Consultant
DoréDevelopment ApS, Ved Stranden 1, 9560 Hadsund, DK-Denmark
Phone: +45 51 92 53 93, E-mail: eha at doredevelopment.dk
WWW: http://www.doredevelopment.dk