Hi Nicola, (01)
I see the problem/issue.... (02)
Am 16.03.2012 16:02, schrieb Nicola Guarino:
> for instance, a group of people (possibly not interested at all in
> the association) may promote a mass membership campaign just to
> conquer the power. (03)
but how can this be detected by our approval procedure
(and within the time frame currently allowed)? It
would seem to me that a better solution would be to *allow*
approval to be checked (and rejected) if there are grounds (which would
need to be raised explicitly) rather than having a default
approval procedure that actually then does little because
it becomes a formality for 99% (I presume so far 100%)
of actual cases. I think the association must retain
the right to decline membership, but the issue is
more how that is managed. At present it seems to be
just overhead for little reward. How about a
retroactive rejection clause: "membership may be
rejected by a majority vote of the EC up to a
month after membership on full refund of paid
dues." Membership is thus automatic, but provisional
for a month.... [I'm not sure at this stage then which
option ends up bringing the most overhead...] (04)
>
> and do you all DO read those messages anyway?? (05)
thank those ontological gods above us
for the 5th amendment to the US constitution.... (06)
:-) (07)
John. (08)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:iaoa-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/iaoa-council/
List Info: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-council/
http://iaoa.cim3.net/file/council/
Community Portal: http://iaoa.org (09)
|