Decide on the statutes principles for the asset-holding association
Objective
Reach consensus on the principles behind the statutes.
The logic behind it would be better to set on stone the big principles of the association before writing the statues.
Open to discussion.
Links
Matti Schneider
Wed 1 Apr 2020 1:33PM
This description is inconsistent:
Why isn't “the code” a resource that enables use and contribution?
Why isn't governance a resource that enables contribution?
Why ins't managing funds a resource that enables contribution?
I have a hard time suggesting an alternative phrasing as I'm not sure what the intention is.
For my part, I'd rather have the copyright of the code owned by this entity, along with governance enforcement
Mahdi Ben Jelloul
Sun 5 Apr 2020 3:22PM
What are the objective of preventing code (at least openfisca-core etc) to be a shared asset ?
Poll Created Thu 23 Jan 2020 4:58PM
Means Closed Wed 8 Apr 2020 10:03AM
We're going to propose a counter-proposition
The association has complete control over the shared assets
The association has no control whatsoever of anything else (source code, contribution governance...)
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 25.0% | 1 |
|
| Abstain | 25.0% | 1 |
|
|
| Disagree | 50.0% | 2 |
|
|
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 0 |
4 of 4 people have participated (100%)
Laurent Bossavit
Wed 18 Mar 2020 4:54PM
It seems redundant to state what an org has no control over…
Thomas
Wed 18 Mar 2020 7:13PM
I don't understand the purpose of that section. What does it correspond to in a French association ? (https://www.associations.gouv.fr/1001-redaction-statuts-association.html)
Matti Schneider
Wed 1 Apr 2020 1:34PM
Who owns the code copyright then?
Poll Created Thu 23 Jan 2020 5:02PM
Admission Closed Wed 8 Apr 2020 10:03AM
There's no conclusive outcome
Must be sponsored by 2 members
No active member of the association is opposed to the person in question's membership
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 33.3% | 2 |
|
| Abstain | 33.3% | 2 |
|
|
| Disagree | 33.3% | 2 |
|
|
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 0 |
6 of 6 people have participated (100%)
Thomas
Wed 18 Mar 2020 7:10PM
Sponsoring can limit the association ability to get recognised for « public good » (http://association1901.fr/droit-association-loi-1901/comment-reserver-adhesion-association-a-un-public-determine/). It may be better to explicit replace it with something objective (or more objective) such as « significantly contribute to OpenFisca in the recent past ».
Matti Schneider
Wed 1 Apr 2020 1:35PM
Letting any old member veto any new member sounds like a way to ensure nothing changes ever.
Sandra Chakroun
Wed 1 Apr 2020 10:26PM
Together, these two conditions might block the evolution of the structure. So, I would at least change one of them. I'm in favour of Thomas's proposition to replace the sponsoring with « contributed to OpenFisca ». I also agree with the risk of veto from previous members that wouldn't allow the group to evolve ; we could reduce the effect of one person alone. + The admission requires that the person joins on the basis of the principles that we are defining in this loomio.