This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] amendment proposal for the Article of association
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] amendment proposal for the Article of association
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] amendment proposal for the Article ofassociation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at baycix.de
Wed Mar 28 10:33:30 CEST 2012
Hi all, > > On 27 mar 2012, at 20:07, sergey myasoedov wrote: > >> Currently at least 2% of members should vote for adding items into Agenda. >> Respective to the total number of members this means that _160_ LIRs should ask the EB to >> discuss something that is not included in the Agenda. >> >> From my opinion that is too much. No more than 250-300 members are usually attending >> GM, even with the electronic voting. And 2% threshold means ~50% of active members, so >> there is no possibility to raise any question to the GM level. >> >> And this is the reason for my proposal: to change the threshold in the section 15.6 >> of AoA to 0.3% or to 30 or 40 members. >> >> Any suggestions? > > I actually prefer to keep it the way it is. The 2% is referring to the total number of eligible votes, not to the number of people attending the AGM. 2% is actually a very low threashold, and lowering the bar further risks launching a DDoS on the AGM, which we don't need. The primary means of influencing the direction of the association as a member is through the elections to the RIPE NCC board. Not through launching agenda items on to the AGM agenda. > Yes, there is a reason for such clauses. The right way to tackle the issue is to get active, inform more LIRs and encourage them to join the discussions/AGM/voting and if enough members share an idea, they will raise their voice. It's not a good idea to lower such thresholds so that even less members can decide upon such things. This can make the whole process too slow and complicated ("dDos"), we shouldn't go that way. -> If someone has some points to add, look for the member/LIR list, write some nice mails and make everyone aware of it (i hope i am not encouraging everyone to start spamming now... ) I'm sure if the idea is good, more than 2% will get active. 2% is really low. > Keep as is! > Same here. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] amendment proposal for the Article of association
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] amendment proposal for the Article ofassociation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]