[Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments

[wanjaustev at gmail.com]

True. 

Abbas Mahmood <abbasjnr at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Erm, I think we forgot no.6:
>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".
>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.)
>
>Abbas.
>
>> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:26:07 +0300
>> From: oslimoke at gmail.com
>> To: wikimediake at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
>> 
>> Abbas,
>> I agree with that.Lets adopt it.
>> Any more queries?
>> 
>> On 7/16/11, Abbas Mahmood <abbasjnr at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Here's what Stephen and I suggested:
>> > A minimum of one third of the members can call for a Special Resolution
>> > Meeting, with notice given to all members at least 7 days in advance.
>> > However, a majority of two thirds of the members' votes shall be required to
>> > remove a director, or the whole Board.
>> > Abbas.
>> >> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:20:55 +0300
>> >> From: oslimoke at gmail.com
>> >> To: wikimediake at lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
>> >>
>> >> Abbas,
>> >> >> I suggest we say 10% of the members can call for a "Special Meeting"
>> >> >> to express a vote of no confidence in the board.However such a vote
>> >> >> should only be considered valid if atleast 30% of the members partake
>> >> >> in it and that the voting out of the board/resolution should be
>> >> >> supported by 50% +1 of the voting members(i.e the 30% present)....
>> >> >
>> >> > May I try to interpret what you are saying in actual figures?
>> >> > 10% of ~20 members = 2 members.30% of ~20 members = 6 members51% of the
>> >> > 6
>> >> > members = 4 members
>> >> > So therefore in simpler terms, what you are saying is that at least 2
>> >> > members can call for a Special Resolution and the vote is only
>> >> > considered
>> >> > valid if at least 6 members partake in the voting and the voting out of
>> >> > the
>> >> > board should be supported by at least 4 members?
>> >> > If this is what you are implying, I disagree with it. Once again, I
>> >> > borrow
>> >> > precedence from Wikimedia Deutschland's case (mentioned earlier
>> >> > upthread)
>> >> > where they require a majority to remove the Board. 6 out of 20 members
>> >> > is
>> >> > not a majority.
>> >>
>> >> Your interpretation is correct.And yes that's my thought and the %
>> >> were arbitrary.We could revise them upwards.Plus am considering the
>> >> fact that definitely not all members will be present nor would partake
>> >> in the elections.Maybe we revise the % upwards??
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Limoke Oscar,
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> WikimediaKE mailing list
>> >> WikimediaKE at lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
>> >  		 	   		
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Limoke Oscar,
>> mayenge.blogspot.com
>> Freelancer,
>> GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikimediaKE mailing list
>> WikimediaKE at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
> 		 	   		  
>_______________________________________________
>WikimediaKE mailing list
>WikimediaKE at lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake