[Ubuntu-be] bank account -> minimal formal structure proposal

[Nicolas Pettiaux]

2006/10/31, François Schoubben <fsc at info.fundp.ac.be>:
> > We want two coordinators:
> > * with a demonstrated need to access ubuntu-be.org funds frequently
> > (fairs,...)
> > * 1 NL_BE, 1 FR_BE
> > * who publish every ubuntu-be.org bank account transaction they make
> > to this list and the web site
>
> I agree

so do I

> > 1. Candidates for coordinatorship propose themselves to the list.
> > (optional) If there is more than one candidate per language,
> > candidates discuss between them and step back voluntarily until there
> > is only one candidate left.
> > If impossible, further discussion.
> > 2. As soon as this one candidate per language gets the public support
> > of 10 list members, he is elected.
>
> Ok

+1

> > proposal 2: mandate duration
> > A coordinator is appointed for two years, with the possibility to
> > resign early at any given moment. After this term, a new consensus
> > election.
>
> good. We'll just have to remember this in 2 years from now... Should we
> have an online agenda ? :-)

OK

> > proposal 3: dispute resolution
> > When a list member is unhappy about something the coordinator did:
> > 1. private discussion with the coordinator.
> > if unresolved:
> > 2. public discussion
> > if unresolved:
> > 3. public ousting: 1.5 * the number of votes that elected the
> > candidate needed; if ousting successful, new election
>
> Shouldn't we put a maximum number ? What if somebody have (let's dream)
> 50 votes... If there is a problem with him, we'll have to find 75 people
> "against" him ?
> I think if 30 or 40 are "against", a new "election" must be decided...
> Or a vote could occurs, the "pro" vs. the "cons" ?

The bank will add some administrative contraints for which a
suggestion could be that there are 2 more backup people who can sign
on the bank account.

Indeed, in case of problem with one person and only 2 with signature,
for a "association de faits" (I am sorry I don't know the name in
Flemis" (de facto association I would say in English), it is probable
that the bank will block everything ... what we would not want. Having
more than 2 people would solve this constraint added by the bank (I
have faced it in anoter form !)

So we should also, if we stay with a de facto association for
ubuntu-be (which is good), tackle this potential problem when
considering a resolution procedure.

>
> That said, Mark and Cedric have my votes for now :-)

mine too

Thanks to them,

Nicolas
-- 
Nicolas Pettiaux - email: nicolas.pettiaux at ael.be