Re: [Add to FAQ]: Making the Association aims more clear -- proposal

[Davi Leal]

MJ Ray wrote:
> [1] - Firstly, I think it should be "people" not "persons".
>
> Secondly, a corporation is treated as a legal person.  That's the
> whole point of them - it makes it harder to stop a company being a
> person.

You are right. I have replaced "persons" with "people".



Note that the project is just a proposal. It can be what you want. We must fix 
and improve it if it is needed.


> Thirdly, what is the aim of this stuff?  Can I not be a member of the
> association because I am a member of a company?

You can.  You can be in any case an "associate member" or a "voting member".

 Ref.: http://gnuherds.org/charter#Membership

  "There shall be two kinds of members, voting members,
   to be known simply as a member, and non-voting members,
   to be known as an associate member."

> Or, if I can, does this mean that a 100-worker company can
> get 100 voices, while my 3-worker company can have only 3 voices?

The company gets 100 voting-voices only if each one of its workers has 
individually contributed to the free software community, and each one of its 
workers take the personal decision to register and vote in the association.

 Ref.: http://gnuherds.org/charter#Membership

  "To qualify for voting membership one must show a contribution
   to the Free Software movement."
                      ^^
                      ||
However reading the above wording it is not clear if a company can get vote 
power or not.  The initial proposal was that only people can vote, nor 
companies neither non-profits.

  Ref. [a]: http://gnuherds.org/doc/GNUHerds__ER__Logical-model.png


To clarify such wording I propose two options:

  1) Modify the wording to explicitly disallow company voting:

     "To qualify for voting membership one must be a people
      and show a contribution to the Free Software movement."

  2) or just leave it as now, therefore allowing to vote to
     companies and non-profit organizations. Of course only
     one vote by organization.  One email GPG key, one vote.

     So a company could be able to get:
         * only one vote as 'company' and
         * any number of votes as 'people' (their workers)
     all having individually contributed to free software.

I prefer the option 2), more simple. Less 'special' cases. If we choose the 
option 2) I will update the [a] diagram and the data base.


> Finally, helping someone to create a new company may not be helping
> the person, or the free software community.

If that person gets money from her new company, that helps her.

If that new company produces or sells support services about free software, 
that helps to the free software community.

> (I'm bitter - my company struggles to find new workers.)

If this project success you will be able to fill and post a job offer to try 
to get new workers.  You can even fill it now. Maybe I will subscribe to 
it ;)


> [2] - I like this change.
>
> Also, I would remove the world "professional".  It has negative
> connotations that someone is only doing a task because they are paid
> to do so, not because they want to do it anyway.  Compare "artisanal".

You are right. I have removed the "professional" word.



P.S.: Changes not committed yet letting more feedback.

Davi