AssociationBoardMinutes20170406

• April 6th 2014, 12:15 UTC
• IRC Chat

Agenda

1. Elect officers for new Board
2. Consider motions raised in GA for changes to AssociationArticles and announcing an Extraordinary General Assembly on 19th May 2017 for Active Members to discuss

Attendees

• GeorgeClark
• JulianLevens re-elected as Treasurer
• LynnwoodBrown re-elected as Chair
• MichaelDaum
• MarkusUeberall

Minutes

14:09:57	Lynnwood__	Do board members want to meet now (since we're here) for selection of officers and other matters?
14:10:14	gac410	I'm available.
14:10:20	cdot	don't forget the EGA in 2 months time
14:10:29	JulianLevens	Ok by me, just need a two minute break
14:10:36	Lynnwood__	y, that's something to discuss.
14:10:48	uebera||	Oh, the downsides of being a board member are showing already... :o)
14:10:51	Lynnwood__	(the EGA, not JulianLevens' break)
14:11:05	uebera||	Do we have a separate channel for this as well? #foswiki-board?
14:11:37	Lynnwood__	unless, we need something private, why not just continue here so it's all in same record?
14:12:34	uebera||	fine with me.
14:12:50	Lynnwood__	Need to hear from MichaelDaum if he's available
14:13:38	MichaelDaum	I am here, yes
14:13:43	Lynnwood__	taking 2 minute break to refill coffee and unload last...
14:15:28	JulianLevens	I'm back
14:16:46	cdot	https://foswiki.org/Community/MotionToSimplifyMembershipCriteria
14:17:13	Lynnwood__	I'm back with cookie in lieu of breakfast.
14:17:46	Lynnwood__	omg cdot - frighteningly efficient
14:17:59	cdot	will remain in the room though will shut up. Ping me if you need me to leave for in camera discussions.
14:19:06	gac410	That motion looks great to me.
14:19:07	Lynnwood__	is looking at calendar... A meeting 2 months out would be around June 9.
14:19:10	MichaelDaum	finished reading
14:19:27	MichaelDaum	lean and simple
14:19:47	JulianLevens	zactly
14:19:54	gac410	June 9th works fine for me.
14:19:55	uebera||	w.r.t. attendance, I agree. Since we have the "Supporting Members", I'm not sure w.r.t. using one's voting rights, though.
14:20:38	JulianLevens	You mean an active member should be erm active
14:20:43	uebera||	yes
14:21:01	Lynnwood__	If we hold meeting on June 9, then the invite would need to go out April 28, i believe.
14:21:02	uebera||	At least voting every other year should be doable even now.
14:21:28	gac410	Isn't it 6 weeks notice for meetings, or is that just the annual meeting.
14:21:38	Lynnwood__	Not sure...
14:22:46	OliverKrueger	Usually 6 weeks apply to every GA.
14:23:15	uebera||	And the invitation must go out within the next 6 weeks.
14:24:20	gac410	y. EGA is still a GA for notification purposes. So you were right. For June 9th, notification goes out by April 28th.
14:24:48	Lynnwood__	sounds right and certainly can be done.
14:25:02	Lynnwood__	We can include proposed change.
14:25:39	gac410	Right, and remind current active members to please provide proxy if cannot attend.
14:25:46	Lynnwood__	JulianLevens - since you sent out last invite, can you do this one?
14:25:48	uebera||	After rereading §9 3), it looks to me as if the EGA has to happen within the next 6 weeks.
14:25:58	JulianLevens	Sure
14:26:03	Lynnwood__	hmmm\
14:27:18	JulianLevens	May 19th?
14:27:23	Lynnwood__	I would read that to say that we have to CALL for EGA within 6 weeks, which we are doing
14:27:44	gac410	That is strange. Must call within 6 weeks, but must provide 6 weeks notice. Yes I agree Lynnwood. the requirement is to CALL not necessarily hold.
14:27:56	Lynnwood__	I don't think it means we have to actually HOLD EGA within 6 weeks.
14:28:04	JulianLevens	Reading it again I agree, call not hold
14:28:10	Lynnwood__	that timeline would be untenable giving the notification time
14:28:24	uebera||	IMHO the German "einzuberufen" (to call) is equivalent to "abzuhalten" (to hold) in this context.
14:28:51	Lynnwood__	well, let's go with the more sloppy english...
14:28:57	Lynnwood__
14:28:59	uebera||	Because it essentially means if an EGA is called for, the board cannot delay this. It has to take place.
14:29:38	uebera||	Lynnwood__: We cannot. The German part is legally binding for the Association (e.V.).
14:29:45	Lynnwood__	I don't see how that's a very tenable requirement...
14:29:49	uebera||	If we don't follow this, it can be challenged.
14:30:16	gac410	So how can we meet both a 6-week notice requirement and a 6-week call requirement.
14:30:19	JulianLevens	I can get an email out today and we can meet on 19th May that way 6 weeks notice given and we meet within 6 weeks
14:30:42	JulianLevens	The EGM can also clarify this point for future reference
14:30:53	Lynnwood__	sure...
14:31:17	uebera||	gac410: We cannot/don't need to in that case. §9 c) overrides the six week invitation in that case. So we should do it ASAP.
14:32:20	gac410	I would ask that someone propose for the EGM, an alternate german wording that reflects my english understanding that the board must call for the meeting within 6 weeks, and provide 6-weeks notice for Holding the meeting. So the maximum delay between request ---> call ---> hold is 12 weeks.
14:32:37	JulianLevens	Agreed
14:32:40	Lavr	Note the context. The 6 week clock starts after the board has received an email requesting the EGA and it is supported by at least 10% of the members.
14:32:49	Lynnwood__	I would support confirming the last restrictive timeline.
14:33:20	Lynnwood__	less restrictive... i don't see value in having such a tight requirement.
14:33:47	uebera||	Let's try it the other way round... is it impossible to do this within the next 6 weeks? So we can just put this behind us.
14:34:07	Lynnwood__	yes, i'm fine with that in current case.
14:34:23	Lynnwood__	(although who's going to object)
14:34:39	gac410	So there are 2 clocks. 6 weeks to make the "Call" and then 6 weeks notice. So Notice email must go out by the 28th, and we are well within a 6-week clock to make the call.
14:34:50	Lavr	In this case the GA passed a motion to ask the board to forward a change in the articles and call for EGA. So the correct way is that the board raises a proposal and calls for EGA after having collected 10% approval which is easy as the board is more than 10%
14:34:51	Lynnwood__	6 weeks from today is May 12
14:35:25	JulianLevens	Nope 19th
14:36:02	gac410	I can do the 19th as well, so either way works for me.
14:36:09	Lynnwood__	JulianLevens - y, thanks
14:36:21	JulianLevens	19th OK for me too
14:36:24	Lynnwood__	May 19th it is
14:36:32	Lynnwood__	should be fine with me
14:36:56	JulianLevens	I assume that the call does not need to be 'perfect'. i.e. the meeting can discuss and even amend the proposal
14:37:01	JulianLevens	before voting
14:37:01	Lynnwood__	unless invite to Fijian islands comes in
14:37:30	MichaelDaum	19th is fine for me too
14:37:39	Lynnwood__	JulianLevens - I think that is correct.
14:38:09	Lynnwood__	i would hope so...
14:38:13	uebera||	§9 6) talks about a "specific proposal".
14:38:30	Lynnwood__	since our accepted timeline would not allow any time for refinement
14:38:53	JulianLevens	Isn't the topic from CDot specific?
14:39:22	JulianLevens	Are you saying EGM can only vote Y/N on that proposal as worded?
14:39:59	Lynnwood__	does specific = exact? I would find it hard to believe that EGM can not consider amendments
14:40:34	JulianLevens	I do not read it that way. The wording is to prevent the EGM being used to discuss and pass other measures
14:40:47	Lynnwood__	agreed
14:40:55	uebera||	The term "specific" is not explained. In this case, I'd say it does not matter, but we should in any case agree that the proposal only addresses the relaxation of "active membership". And we cannot address increasing the number of board members during that EGA.
14:41:13	uebera||	(for example)
14:41:37	JulianLevens	I will raise another motion to clarify the Call/Hold meeting issue
14:41:43	Lynnwood__	what about proposal to clarify time-line for further EGM?
14:41:51	Lynnwood__	good
14:42:39	uebera||	We should make sure not to change the articles too frequently as we need to submit them. So in case there are other proposals, this should be bundled somehow.
14:42:46	Lynnwood__	All of this is making case for why less restrictive interpretation makes since.
14:43:41	Lynnwood__	... as more restrictive interpretation leaves very little room for making plans or considering other proposals
14:44:52	Lynnwood__	As a reminder... I think we need to elect officers before we conclude.
14:44:56	JulianLevens	I thought only changes to the 'purposes' of the Association would require re-submission, and that does not apply
14:45:17	gac410	right. I agree. I read that the sam way uebera||
14:45:43	JulianLevens	I'll carry on as treasurer, if that's ok
14:45:58	Lynnwood__	thanks JulianLevens
14:46:04	uebera||	I have had no time to look at the German association law, wouldn't know that ATM.
14:46:28	Lynnwood__	Would you do that for us uebera||?
14:46:31	uebera||	JulainLevens: +1.
14:47:11	uebera||	Lynnwood__: As I said before, I have next to no time during the next three months, so I cannot promise if this is not stated explicitly somewhere.
14:47:17	JulianLevens	§2 3 makes that statement
14:47:35	Lynnwood__	i'm willing to continue as chair as you all are such an agreeable group to meet with, but am not at all attached if someone feels called to step up.
14:47:36	uebera||	§2 3 is worth nothing is it is not in accordance with the law.
14:47:56	JulianLevens	noted
14:49:25	JulianLevens	Lynwood__ chair +1
14:49:41	MichaelDaum	thanks Lynnwood +1
14:49:45	Lynnwood__	uebera|| - are you saying that we to modify §2 3?
14:50:10	Lynnwood__	...need to...
14:50:24	JulianLevens	No, but it may not be legally binding or valid
14:50:54	JulianLevens	i.e. if the law states we must submit any changes then that statement is moot
14:51:10	Lynnwood__	ah. ok
14:51:50	gac410	Re: EGA .. "When the board receives a request with 10% support, it shall be compelled to schedule a meeting to be held within 8 weeks. The call shall be sent with 6 weeks notice." or some such legalese. ... That gives the board a 2 week cushion to get things prepared.
14:51:56	Lynnwood__	... but one could see why such a clause would be in there to assure compliance with law.
14:53:13	Lynnwood__	wonders what arguement there is for putting further time constraints then 6 weeks to announce meeting and then 6 more weeks to hold.
14:53:31	Lynnwood__	The board could always do shorter timeframe if viable.
14:54:05	uebera||	Lynwood__: I don't see a need to modify §2 3, but this does not mean that we need to publish other changes as well. In general, being to explicit if this is covered by the law is a bad thing.
14:54:22	uebera||	(does not mean that we don't need to publish...)
14:54:50	Lynnwood__	uebera|| - i can see your point.
14:55:02	JulianLevens	I think 6 weeks + 6 weeks is a good balance, it also opens up window for members to raise additional Motions for the EGM
14:55:21	Lynnwood__	agreed.
14:55:23	gac410	Regarding meeting clock. The way it's worded, there must be 6 weeks notice, and the meeting must be held within 6 weeks. which means the moment the 10% support is reached, the notice must go out to meet the 6 week notice requirement.
14:55:49	gac410	So 6+6 works for me as well.
14:55:51	Lynnwood__	exactly why i doubt that's the correct interpretation.
14:56:27	Lynnwood__	So all we need is a brilliantly precise German word to convey the more loose english meaning.
14:57:33	gac410	I'll follow CDot's model and make a proposed english wording if someone would translate.
14:57:42	uebera||	6+6 sounds excessive. I'd say we should unify the two cases and ensure to have an EGA within 2 months (as in §9 6) in any case.
14:58:05	JulianLevens	I'll do the English we'll need MichaelDaum and uebera|| to handle the Deutsch
14:58:39	Lynnwood__	uebera|| - is your reasoning that some proposal would be in response to some emergency?
14:58:59	Lynnwood__	or controversy that must be settled in timely manner?
14:59:03	uebera||	I'd say the call for an EGA is about urgent matters in any case. Else why not wait for the GA?
14:59:16	gac410	okay how about 2+6
14:59:51	Lynnwood__	in current case, i don't see it as "urgent".
14:59:59	uebera||	+1
15:00:02	Lynnwood__	Just needs to happen before next eyar.
15:00:09	Lynnwood__	year
15:00:28	Lynnwood__	but i'm not particularly attached....
15:01:05	Lynnwood__	if we find in future experience that the time frame is burdensome, we can call EGA to revise again
15:01:15	Lynnwood__	...and assume it would be quickly revised.
15:01:19	Lynnwood__
15:01:30	uebera||	Let's not forget that we need to either make sure that the relaxation applies to the EGA already or Colas will lose his Active Membership again. <-- this is another topic which should be clarified: Does missing an EGA apply here?
15:01:59	Lynnwood__	uebera|| - What would it not apply?
15:02:26	Lynnwood__	seems like the rule about attending GA is pretty clear.
15:02:46	Lynnwood__	meant to say WHY would it not apply.
15:02:52	uebera||	§9 5) talks about a GA. If we say every EGA is a GA, then it applies. If we say the intention is to have active members voice their opinion at least every other year, then having lots of EGAs is bad.
15:03:35	Lynnwood__	I believe EGA = GA
15:03:40	JulianLevens	yes, if attending is only the annual GA, rather than any GA
15:04:05	Lynnwood__	...just difference of whether it's regularly scheduled or special.
15:04:05	JulianLevens	There is no concept in the articles of a specific annual GA
15:04:18	gac410	Hm. Could someone read paragraph 3 on the scheduling of an EGA? The english grammer doesn't make sense to me.
15:04:21	gac410	See https://foswiki.org/Community/MotionToClarifyTimingForEGA
15:04:56	gac410	In particular: If this request is submitted to the Board by email or, if there is any, by entering the name on a list on the Web Site, and is supported by at least 10% of the Members
15:05:39	Lynnwood__	Given we're talking specific timelines, i think we'd need to be precise about what triggers the clock to start.
15:06:19	gac410	And the paragraph starts with: If it is in the Association’s interest, ... How does that determination get made.
15:06:22	uebera||	I read this as "If a member sends a message to the board by email or if there is a topic which says "request an EGA to discuss topic YYY" somewhere". We don't have the latter and should probably create one.
15:06:38	JulianLevens	I think it should be email only to the board
15:06:52	Lynnwood__	Wait a minute... is this saying that any member can force a EGA by simply sending an email to the board?
15:06:53	JulianLevens	There a board mailing list and it's simpler
15:07:07	uebera||	gac410: From the following sentence, it is considered to be in the interest of the association if there are enough votes rooting for it.
15:07:16	JulianLevens	Currently 10%, but with only 9 members, yes
15:07:53	uebera||	Should we add "at least 2/3/4 votes" here?
15:07:58	Lynnwood__	what does the clause "if there is any, " refer to?
15:08:16	Lynnwood__	if a web site exist?
15:08:24	uebera||	"if there is any [place on the Web/f.o where to state your intention]"
15:08:43	gac410	So any active member may compel a meeting. I agree. Lets say 10% of membership or 3 votes, whichever is larger.
15:08:46	uebera||	"the Web site" should be f.o.
15:08:55	Lynnwood__	sure
15:08:58	uebera||	gac410: +1
15:09:10	JulianLevens	Why not just remove that and only via email to the board?There isn't which is why I'd remove that
15:09:10	gac410	Y. This was probably written prior to the web site being fully established.
15:09:13	Lynnwood__	+1
15:09:48	gac410	Some threshold "compels" the board. so a single email should not do it.
15:10:09	Lynnwood__	I would recommend that we modify it say that if a web site it available, then it must be posted there and supported by 10% or 3 votes, whichever is great.
15:10:24	uebera||	JulianLevens: If you're alone and want to convince other members, the web site may be your only choice (if you're not using IRC)?
15:10:37	uebera||	So IMHO it's a degree of freedom.
15:10:51	Lynnwood__	Otherwise, i would interpret current statement to mean that an email from one member cold force.
15:10:53	JulianLevens	There is also a foswiki-members list which is now only active members
15:11:24	uebera||	Wait a second... it does only say "Members" here, not "active members". Shouldn't this be clarified as well?
15:11:39	JulianLevens	yes only CAtive members
15:12:21	JulianLevens	just invented a new class of membdership
15:12:54	Lynnwood__	Captive members
15:13:08	gac410	The web site does have a MotionForm and MotionTemplate But I don't think that the articles should contain the mechanics. Just state that the web site is a valid way to request a motion.
15:13:13	uebera||	Then maybe it's ok as is. Because it allows a number of supportive members to bring forth topics. Hm.
15:13:40	gac410	It's only active members who can vote.
15:14:07	gac410	So I guess anyone can propose, but unless they are active, they can't really contribute to the outcome.
15:14:07	uebera||	Yes, but supportive members could still bring up topics this way. They have no other means to do that.
15:14:18	gac410	right.
15:16:23	JulianLevens	But a supporting members motion cannot call an EGA unless an active member supports the motion
15:16:57	Lynnwood__	How about "if this request is submitted to the Board by email and posted on web site or other communication channel managed by association for communication to membership, and is supported by at least 10% of the Members
15:17:26	JulianLevens	that must be 'Active Members' there
15:17:31	Lynnwood__	sure
15:17:54	JulianLevens	There is no reliable way we can list supporting members
15:18:17	Lynnwood__	I just think it should be required to be formally presented directly to board and also be posted publically (at least to active members)
15:18:37	JulianLevens	Of course, arguably anyone who raises a motion on f.o. is de facto at that moment a supporting member
15:18:42	Lynnwood__	not either/or
15:18:57	uebera||	Lynnwood__: I'd rather not introduce additional means (are the Slack channels considered managed by the association? is IRC?) E-Mail and web form should be sufficient.
15:19:27	uebera||	We should add: Requests for EGAs are to be published by the board.
15:19:42	Lynnwood__	uebera|| - i guess providing for some other channel would only be in event site is not available....
15:19:44	uebera||	(they are in the invitations, but this should also be cross-posted on the web site)
15:20:37	Lynnwood__	but i share your concern that it's not too vague
15:21:09	JulianLevens	I'd like to limit this to emails to foswiki-members (implicitly the board will see these) and f.o
15:21:12	uebera||	How to verify that "guest|123" is indeed member XYZ if s/he calls for an EGA on IRC? Using E-Mail/the web site, we have the credentials/the member's official email address we can check.
15:21:28	Lynnwood__	JulianLevens +1
15:21:47	Lynnwood__	uebera|| +1
15:23:01	gac410	Okay. I have some proposed wording that needs wordsmithing. ... https://foswiki.org/Community/MotionToClarifyTimingForEGA
15:23:03	Lynnwood__	I suppose, if the web site was not available, board could broadcast by email directly to active members
15:23:49	gac410	The foswiki-members email list has not been maintained in years. We've used the foswiki-announce and foswiki-discuss email lists for the main GA
15:24:00	JulianLevens	I think it should be broadcast by email anyway, I know I need that wake-up call, I can miss it on f.o
15:24:14	Lynnwood__	for sure...
15:24:17	JulianLevens	foswiki-members is now in order and I'll keep it that way
15:24:25	gac410	Oh good.
15:24:46	gac410	Is it just active members, or all
15:24:53	JulianLevens	Just actives
15:25:30	Lynnwood__	of course, nothing would bar board from also posting it on foswiki-announce or foswiki-discuss
15:25:33	gac410	I think we should still it foswiki-announce for meetings. ... if nothing else, to show that the organization is still active and maybe encourage more participation.
15:25:42	JulianLevens	I consider anybody subscribed to foswiki-discuss or foswiki-announce supporting members
15:25:49	Lynnwood__	to reach supporting members or just wanna-be members
15:25:55	gac410	right.
15:25:59	JulianLevens	+1
15:26:12	uebera||	I'd still prefer 2+6 weeks (2 months) for https://foswiki.org/Community/MotionToClarifyTimingForEGA and explicitly align this with §9 6)
15:26:37	uebera||	I.e., we shall always send out invites 6 weeks prior to an (E)GA.
15:26:44	Lynnwood__	the question still in my mind is what is specific event that triggers time clock start.
15:27:27	gac410	when 3, or 10% of (Active?) members support the request?
15:27:33	Lynnwood__	it would seem that it would be the 10% member support threshold but that's somewhat hard to pin down.
15:27:43	Lynnwood__	maybe not...
15:28:24	Lynnwood__	I guess that's the only viable option. otherwise board could stall it, should they have motivation.
15:28:31	gac410	I just reworded it a bit.
15:29:13	uebera||	looks good to me.
15:29:56	uebera||	That way, supportive members have to find 3 active members to support their proposal first.
15:30:28	Lynnwood__	I don't really support the stricter time, as I don't agree with the interpretation or intent of current statement.
15:30:46	Lynnwood__	but am interested in hearing further discussion and thoughts or other members.
15:31:08	Lynnwood__	...i'm fine with either version being put forth.
15:31:21	JulianLevens	I think we are good (enough) to go and announce the EGA for 19th with these two motions
15:31:33	Lynnwood__	agreed.
15:31:42	JulianLevens	the understanding is that the EGA is to discuss further
15:31:52	Lynnwood__	I'm curious about uebera|| statement about "explicitly align this with §9 6"
15:31:54	gac410	Just changed it to "The meeting announcement must be made at least 6 weeks prior to the scheduled meeting" (Added "at least") so we could have 7 weeks notice. as long as the meeting is within the 8 weeks.
15:32:15	JulianLevens	and encourage members to add comments in the discuss section of the topics before the EGA
15:32:56	Lynnwood__	i'm not getting the connection. §9 6 starts with "A majority of 75% of the votes..."
15:33:37	uebera||	§9 6) mentions that topics which did not get enough votes due to lack of participation of Active Members are dealt with within 2 months (->"8 weeks"). By aligning I'm referring to sending out an invitation as for §9 3)
15:33:50	uebera||	(i.e., 6 weeks prior in any case.)
15:34:07	Lynnwood__	ah... yes. I see the 2 months now.
15:34:11	Lynnwood__	thanks
15:34:12	gac410	Do we need to change the wording of 9 6 then?
15:34:42	gac410	Who can do the german translations of the two motions.
15:35:02	uebera||	gac410: I'd say, yes.
15:35:39	uebera||	We can just use the last 2 sentences for each paragraph.
15:35:42	Lynnwood__	is appreciating uebera||'s attention to detail.
15:36:41	JulianLevens	I would note that "Article 9 Paragraph 3 of the Articles of Association is ambiguous on the mechanics of requesting and calling for a meeting. This motion is to clarify the procedures.
15:37:19	uebera||	It's not that I love this (that's an outright lie, of course, I'm German!), but I fear that not aligning this can create problems in case someone really wants to challenge this by arguing that not one paragraph applies but another and therefore, deadlines are not met or ...
15:37:21	JulianLevens	i.e.: The motion is to clarify the procedures, would allow the EGM to make any changes necessary
15:38:14	gac410	is working on paragraph 6 too
15:38:23	Lynnwood__	uebera|| - agreed. ambiguity can often create mischief down the road...
15:38:24	JulianLevens	I don't want the EGA snookered to be only allowed to change a specific paragraph
15:39:27	Lynnwood__	I have not noticed any clause that restricts what any flavor of GA can take action on.
15:40:15	uebera||	JulianLevens: Agreed. We should define what we mean by "specific" then, i.e., one or more agreed topics which might affect one or multiple paragraphs/by-laws.
15:40:56	JulianLevens	An EGA can only act on the specific motions raised. A GA being General can indeed act on anything
15:41:09	Lynnwood__	there you go...
15:41:30	Lynnwood__	the motion must be specific, but the GA can act on anything it wants
15:42:17	Lynnwood__	(I use to be in association where proposals had to be acted on as broadcast. it was a pia.)
15:43:07	gac410	Okay, for paragraph 6. I removed the "2 months" and added The extraordinary General Assembly shall be called per the notification requirements set forth in paragraph 3
15:43:16	JulianLevens	As discussed earlier, I understand the intent is to prevent an EGA being hijacked, i.e. raise a minor motion, therefore only a couple of members attend, then discuss and vote on anything else you like
15:43:20	uebera||	Very good, less redundancy.
15:43:57	uebera||	JulainLevens: I see your point.
15:44:18	Lynnwood__	JulianLevens - I guess that's a function of small membership...
15:44:34	Lynnwood__	e.g. bar for quorum is so low.
15:44:39	JulianLevens	Lynnwood__: I think we are maybe at cross purposes ref GA acting on anything it wants
15:45:38	Lynnwood__	That's merely my reading of current articles...
15:46:08	Lynnwood__	it delineate actions ONLY GA can take, but i don't see LIMITS on what GA can do...
15:46:08	JulianLevens	I think its correct to take a motion (in an EGA) and deal with its intent rather than a very specific re-wording of a particular para
15:48:08	JulianLevens	§9 6: last sentence: "It can only be decided about the specific proposal that caused this EGA"
15:48:45	JulianLevens	Therefore, if in that EGA you decide about something else that you would be out of order
15:48:59	uebera||	+1
15:50:25	Lynnwood__	got it. agreed.
15:50:43	Lynnwood__	thanks
15:50:44	JulianLevens	In fact reading §9 6 again, we could in theory in today's GA have made these changes, but I doubt in practice we could have done
15:50:57	gac410	So can I reword that: The EGA shall only consider the specific proposal(s) that caused this EGA"
15:51:30	Lynnwood__	gac410 I think that's clearer.
15:51:36	JulianLevens	yes, that would be better. It could be argued as it stands we'd need an EGA for each proposal
15:51:45	JulianLevens	aaaagh!!!!
15:51:50	Lynnwood__	"It can only be decided about..." is not very good grammer
15:53:40	Lynnwood__	This kind of word-smithing is difficult enough in english. I can only imagine what such discussions must be like in German.
15:53:55	uebera||	We have a compound word for everything.
15:54:18	gac410	okay ... I've reworded that as well.
15:54:32	Lynnwood__	I guess that's where such linguistic conventions pay off.
15:54:53	Lynnwood__	The magic of modifiers
15:55:43	gac410	Anything else?
15:55:51	uebera||	Previously, we have omitted references to "f.o" and only mentioned "The association's web site".
15:56:02	Lynnwood__	how about breakfast?
15:56:06	Lynnwood__	kidding.
15:56:41	uebera||	(/me has https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCeblitorte instead)
15:57:01	gac410	So my question there .. is that because the web site was not up when the articles were being written? or should I change it to the more generic.
15:57:14	Lynnwood__	oh man! now i'm jealous.
15:57:20	uebera||	I'd prefer a more generic wording.
15:57:44	Lynnwood__	i've only had lemon-ginger cookies made with my daughter last night
15:57:54	uebera||	because we have the clarification of terminology on pg. 1 which already refers to f.o in 3)
15:58:00	uebera||	I.e., again less redundancy here.
15:58:03	gac410	okay. Changed to generic
15:58:39	gac410	Any more wordsmithing?
15:58:53	uebera||	Not from my side.
15:59:29	JulianLevens	Looks good to me
15:59:36	Lynnwood__	I'm good
16:00:33	gac410	Great. So if someone would do the translation for the two proposed amendments, we are good to go on getting an announcement out.
16:00:34	Lynnwood__	Anything further to discuss?
16:00:43	gac410	Do we need to elect officers?
16:01:01	JulianLevens	Need to go now, tonight I'll update foswiki-members to add colas back and remove the 3 recent lapsees and send out the EGM notice for 19th May
16:01:25	JulianLevens	Already re-elected existing officers
16:01:33	gac410	okay good.
16:01:44	gac410	I'm set then. move to adjourn.
16:01:44	Lynnwood__	Ok. then meeting adjourned.
16:02:04	Lynnwood__	...unless i hear objections...;-)
16:02:18	JulianLevens	Brilliant, thanks very much one and all
16:02:23	Lynnwood__	adjourned by consent
16:02:24	uebera||	Next steps are then to support these motions be signing them, right? And to find out whether we need to submit the changes after the EGA takes place.
16:02:30	Lynnwood__	yes, thanks to everyone.