<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma">Erm, I think we forgot no.6:</font><div style="font-family: Tahoma; "><br></div><div style="font-family: Tahoma; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(42, 42, 42); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19px; ">6. If someone just doesn't pay fees, when will he/she no longer be a member? Usually bylaws have a clause saying something along the lines "if you didn't pay your dues for more than a year, and two reminders have been sent the board may remove membership from you".</span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#2a2a2a" face="sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#2a2a2a"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma">My opinion is that if you haven't paid the membership fees, you aren't considered as a member so we wouldn't have to "remove membership" from you in the first place. This, of course, doesn't mean that such a person is not allowed to attend meetings, etc but what he can not do is vote. I also suggest that members should also be given priority over non-members when it comes to participating in projects. (e.g., it would be unfair to take a non-member to Mombasa for the Wikipedia for Schools project when there was a member who wanted to go.)</font><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#2a2a2a" face="Tahoma"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#2a2a2a" face="Tahoma"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;">Abbas.<br></span></font></div><div><div style="font-family: Tahoma; "><br></div><div style="font-family: Tahoma; ">> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:26:07 +0300<br>> From: oslimoke@gmail.com<br>> To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org<br>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments<br>> <br>> Abbas,<br>> I agree with that.Lets adopt it.<br>> Any more queries?<br>> <br>> On 7/16/11, Abbas Mahmood <abbasjnr@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> ><br>> > Here's what Stephen and I suggested:<br>> > A minimum of one third of the members can call for a Special Resolution<br>> > Meeting, with notice given to all members at least 7 days in advance.<br>> > However, a majority of two thirds of the members' votes shall be required to<br>> > remove a director, or the whole Board.<br>> > Abbas.<br>> >> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:20:55 +0300<br>> >> From: oslimoke@gmail.com<br>> >> To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org<br>> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments<br>> >><br>> >> Abbas,<br>> >> >> I suggest we say 10% of the members can call for a "Special Meeting"<br>> >> >> to express a vote of no confidence in the board.However such a vote<br>> >> >> should only be considered valid if atleast 30% of the members partake<br>> >> >> in it and that the voting out of the board/resolution should be<br>> >> >> supported by 50% +1 of the voting members(i.e the 30% present)....<br>> >> ><br>> >> > May I try to interpret what you are saying in actual figures?<br>> >> > 10% of ~20 members = 2 members.30% of ~20 members = 6 members51% of the<br>> >> > 6<br>> >> > members = 4 members<br>> >> > So therefore in simpler terms, what you are saying is that at least 2<br>> >> > members can call for a Special Resolution and the vote is only<br>> >> > considered<br>> >> > valid if at least 6 members partake in the voting and the voting out of<br>> >> > the<br>> >> > board should be supported by at least 4 members?<br>> >> > If this is what you are implying, I disagree with it. Once again, I<br>> >> > borrow<br>> >> > precedence from Wikimedia Deutschland's case (mentioned earlier<br>> >> > upthread)<br>> >> > where they require a majority to remove the Board. 6 out of 20 members<br>> >> > is<br>> >> > not a majority.<br>> >><br>> >> Your interpretation is correct.And yes that's my thought and the %<br>> >> were arbitrary.We could revise them upwards.Plus am considering the<br>> >> fact that definitely not all members will be present nor would partake<br>> >> in the elections.Maybe we revise the % upwards??<br>> >> Regards,<br>> >><br>> >> --<br>> >> Limoke Oscar,<br>> >><br>> >> _______________________________________________<br>> >> WikimediaKE mailing list<br>> >> WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org<br>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake<br>> > <br>> <br>> <br>> -- <br>> Limoke Oscar,<br>> mayenge.blogspot.com<br>> Freelancer,<br>> GeoInformatics and GIScience Student<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> WikimediaKE mailing list<br>> WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org<br>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake<br></div></div> </div></body>
</html>