[Foundation-l] bylaws (second call)

[Erik Moeller]

On 8/15/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> My understanding is that chapter membership is only treated as
> equivalent to membership in the Foundation if the bylaws specifically
> state this.  I'm not really sure if this is a good idea or not - I
> tend to think it isn't.

What problems could be caused by writing this into the bylaws, if it
is indeed legally possible?

> In case it was just in my mind and not in my writing, the plan would be
> that members would have to pay dues annually or meet the activity
> requirements to have dues waived.

Regular reconfirmation of membership, especially before important
votes, may be sufficient. If membership can easily be regained,
expiring member accounts who do not reconfirm shouldn't be too much of
a problem.

> I definitely think participation in the committees should require
> membership.

I do think volunteer or advisory participation in open committee
meetings and discussions should not require membership. Legal
committee membership is a different story.

> As Michael Snow said, and I'll add that this is under Florida law,
> they have to be available to the other members, so they're essentially
> public.

That would give people who are the target of campaigns by the likes of
Brandt a reason not to become members. You're right that a user's edit
history can give many hints to their identity. But when you have a
list of 20 potential "candidates" you could match to a particular user
ID, then verifying the member roster would be a way to complete the
match.

I think people who have reasons not to become members should still
have as many venues of participation as possible.

Erik