Organisation talk:Syn2cat

Members

Should we allow "personne physique" only or also "personne morale" ? The various associations would be a "personne morale" and their members would automatically be granted access to the hackerspace without paying an additional fee (See #Access to the Hackerspace). That would require the associations to pay a monthly or annual fee, depending on the number of their members and their level of involvement. --kwisatz 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Administration

There was an alternate proposal for Art. 10 from Macfreak109 who suggested to have the board consist of members from the various member-associations, relative to the number of their members. But also to include syn2cat-only members.

So that in the end, I'd suggest to increase the maximum number of the board to 10 people (+2 speakers), having:

• Each associations has at least 1 seat, at most the number of seats equivalent to their percentage of the total members to MAY frequent the hackerspace.
• The delegates to the board by an association will have to be elected by that associations general assembly.
• The new delegates will become effective members of the board on the day of their election.

Example:

Association 1: 50 members = 61% of total members = 6 seats
Association 2: 12 members = 15% of total members = 2 seats
Association 3: 20 members = 24% of total members = 2 seats

The speakers can still only be elected from the syn2cat members to ensure that no association (of 200+ members) can abuse the hackerspace for its own purposes and exclude other associations.

I agree that this seems a bit complicated. So that another proposal would be to simply have 2 representatives from each association, no matter what their number of members and fill the remaining positions by hackerspace-only people.

Access to the Hackerspace

This might be more of an issue for the internal regulations... but how do we handle access to the hackerspace? This question is also linked to the fees somewhat. Other Hackerspaces have a monthly fee of €20 to €25. Do we charge associations if they want to hold a venue or not? --kwisatz 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Article 3 - contradictory: "à condition que l'idéologie de celui-ci ne conteste les intérêts de l'association" - either we're neutral, or not, we can't be both at the same time. Political neutrality would also mean that we can't use the hackerspace as a platform for issues that mean a lot to us: privacy/data-retention, DRM etc. Of course, if you remove the last clause, various associations could well use the facilities of the hackerspace for these purposes (eg. C3L) --Tschew 09:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the sentence is contradictory or badly written. But the idea behind this was to keep parties from claiming our activities for their purpose. I.e. the left wing party from claiming that, if we're against surveillance, we must be left wing or the right wing from supporting their claims with our actions against.. whatever. That shouldn't mean that we can't act politically, if you understand politics as the act of operating in society, not of making policy or supporting party politics. --kwisatz 10:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Article 10 - Separate votes for male and female representatives? How is this proposition justified? --Tschew 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To make absolutely sure that there's one speaker of each gender. If there was but one female candidate for the speaker position, she would be automatically elected. --kwisatz 10:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• [History↑]

Search terms: 

Sorting order: last modified first newest threads first oldest threads first

You cannot post new threads to this discussion page because it has been protected from new threads.

There are no threads on this page yet.