Proposed revisions of Article 3: Membership

I have had several discussions with Ian, Joey, and Dale about this, and
this will be the first time those thoughts are really put down in writing.
Eventually it would be nice to have a document that contains all of the
rationales behind the articles- that way people can see the 'spirit of the
law' as well as the letter.

Actually, before the real 'writing' I'd like to outline a few possible
scenarios. I'm not sure which one makes most sense... all have their
advantages and drawbacks. I'm somewhat torn between scenarios 1&2- I'm
not sure which is better suited to SPIs goals.

I'd like to figure out which scenario makes the most sense (and why!!) and
then figure out the details, and then actually write the bylaws article.
When commenting on this, please don't just ask questions- also try to
propose solutions at the same time.

Discussion season is open.

Nils.

Scenario 1:
-----------
'flat' membership. In this case everyone who agrees with the principles
and goals of SPI can become a member. Voting can be either limited to
voting for board embers, or voting on resolutions etc. as well (with
quorums established etc.).

ADVANTAGES:
- No membership levels (i.e. flat membership)
- very little administrative work
- greater membership carries more political weight
- advantages if members only vote for the board members is that SPI can
be very reactive (in terms of speed). If you think about it, you're
electing the people that listen to the discussions, and then make the
decisions (i.e. vote on the resolutions that have been developed).

DISADVANTAGES
- if members vote on resolutions etc. then the voting process will take
a lot longer. Thus SPI will be less reactive. Perhaps the board can be
permitted to approve a resolution with a super majority (2/3 + 1 or
something similar)
- more/less informed members (some will be more/less active) mean
discussions will likely last longer

Scenario 2:
-----------
tiered membership. Have 'contributing members' and 'supporting members'
where the contributing members have to be active in the free software
world in some way.
contributing members can vote on board members and resolutions
supporting members can not vote, but can propose resolutions

ADVANTAGES:
- voting is easier since there will be less people who have to vote
- voters will be more informed since they're more active
- SPI still gets the large membership base

DISADVANTAGES
- you need to define contributing (that's not hard) and somehow verify
that the member is contributing. A neat idea would be two year
memberships and at the end of the two years you have to send a mail
stating what you've done in the last two years for the community.
- more administrative work- the membership committee has to worry about
all this
- do we _want_ to create a difference between members? i.e. the
discussion is going and someone says 'but I'm a contributing member and
you're not!' Yuck. Ugly.

Scenario 3:
-----------
only contributing members are allowed. (I personally don't like this
option at all.)

ADVANTAGES
- informed members
- simpler (shorter) voting periods

DISADVANTAGES
- much much smaller membership -> less political weight. If we're
trying to represent and stand for the community, we should allow anyone in.
- less of a range of opinions in the discussions and less interest in
the discussions. why should non members join in?

--
Nils Lohner Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
E-Mail: lohner(at)spi-inc(dot)org PO Box 1326
Board Of Directors <board(at)spi-inc(dot)org> Boston, Ma. 02117 USA