KDE e.V. transparency (was: Re: Voting rights - the GNOME way)

[Andreas Pour]

Rob Kaper wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 12:15:26AM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > Not only from the outside! I am a KDE e.V. member since the Hamburg
> > meeting. But other than in Hamburg, I've heard nothing from KDE e.V.  Mail
> > addressed to the board was not answered; the KDE e.V. list is either dead
> > or I was forgotten to be subscribed there...
> 
> I assume the board has to have a meeting at least once a month and that the
> transcripts of those meetings should be available to all members? 

No, they have a private mailing list but nobody else is permitted to join.  But
don't get me started on this again :-).

> That was
> pretty common for all organizations I have ever been a member off.. just
> like the general member meeting approves budgets, elects the board..

I think anyone who agrees to confidentiality and does not interfere with its
operations or act counter-productively should be able to join the Board's
private mailing list.  I feel disenfranchised.

> > Don't get me wrong. The meeting itself was quite nice and productive,
> > but I do consider letting myself be set to "passive" membership (the
> > new membership status), since I don't see a difference between being a
> > member and not being a member anyway. But then, the board possibly
> > won't answer that request, too. :-(
> 
> Request a member meeting. Most statutes have a rule where a certain amount
> of signatures (albeit it digital GPG ones) are sufficient that the board
> *must* hold a general member meeting. At which the present members can place
> a vote of non-confidence in the board and have it replaced with new
> elections.

Well don't ask me to fly to Germany again, thank you very much.

In any event KDE eV is a membership-based organization and we don't need for the
Board to do anything - they are not our servants.  OTOH, I find it distressing
that I have absolutely no idea what they are up to, despite having repeatedly
shown a strong interest in knowing.
 
> If the e.V. statutes don't have anything like that in place.. well, then I
> don't know if we should trust the e.V. with any resources or as owner of
> trademarks.

The situation currently is bad b/c the statutes were not validly approved.  I
will not be caught off guard at the next meeting :-).

Ciao,

Dre