Repository navigation
A new membership class #13
Replies: 17 comments 51 replies
|
I suggested something similar a couple of years ago and I was laughed at for daring to suggest any annual membership/subscription scheme. I was also told then—as now—that certain people would n-e-v-e-r pay anything to enjoy the privileges of membership and that, if a universal subscription-based membership was introduced, the scheme would cause a mass exodus of volunteers abandoning the project. People fail to learn that we can't have whatever we want in life without having to pay for it in some way. No-one is automatically entitled to anything; nor should people expect that "someone else" will carry the financial burden. |
|
Nothing has changed. What you are suggesting goes against the core principles. |
|
The core principles of equity and equality? |
|
Trust me, I didn't saw them before, otherwise I would have credited them! I like those ideas:
I was thinking to use the Volunteers Portal, just to have one central place. |
|
All before your time(?) so I didnt expect you to remember. The reason at the time that it was supporters etc was because the OSM structure at that time didnt allow for membership and it wouldnt have had any meaning either. I also foolishly thought it would make it easy to implement and avoid any legal issues etc as you didnt get anything, just a badge. Guess i was wrong on that. |
|
With the structure change occurred in 2017, OSM is a membership corp. so having different class of membership is allowed and already there. |
|
I like the idea. Maybe you should think about a minimum amount for the annual fee and a possibility to pay more if you want to (with the same rights). |
|
20 USD is way to cheap, 200-1000+ USD would fit more (my opinion) |
|
|
I think we are worth more than they are ;-) |
|
I shared the other fees just for a quick comparison.
|
|
The big mac index while a good idea is surprisingly not very fair and equitable |
|
I support the proposal, to implement a paid membership scheme, and allow full voting rights to those people at annual, semi-annual or other general meetings of the members. I suspect that the voting rights (as far as elections are concerned) relating to Class 2 and 3 members should probably be removed and allow Class 4 members the ability to vote for all Class 1 positions. I don't have an opinion at this time about the eligibility criteria for nominations to Class 1 (esp. Director) roles. That is, if Directors can only be nominated if they are existing Class 2 or Class 3 members. However, these criteria may complicate the nomination process and it may be equally desirable to extend the ability to nominate for any Class 1 role to all Class 4 members as well. As far as setting the annual membership fee is concerned, I think @HLeithner is gilding the lily by proposing fee in excess of USD25.00. By all means, the annual membership fee may need to be reviewed annually based upon (a) affordability, (b) costs involved in administering the scheme, and (c) inflationary trends. At this time, though, I support @jeckodevelopment in setting the initial fee at USD20.00 and I am excited by the prospect; I would willingly contribute this amount. This proposal goes a long way towards overcoming my several criticisms about the structure of OSM. I have a few problems with the Class 4 membership conditions that Luca set out:
Class 4 Members are not necessarily required to be member of any of the official teams or working group, in any specific capacity. In other words, Class 4 members can, if they choose or are invited by teams, join teams if they wish.
Class 4 Members shall be entitled vote in elections for all Class 1 roles: President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer and Directors.
Class 4 Members are eligible to attend and vote on proposals placed on the agenda at Semi-Annual Members Meetings and Special Members Meetings. Class 4 Members may be entitled to attend other Open Source Matters Members Meetings by invitation.
Agree.
Class 1, 3 and 3 members shall pay an annual membership fee as determined by the Board OSM. This fee shall not exceed the membership fee prescribed for Class 4 members but shall not be less than USD2.00 per year.
I feel that the suggestions I have made will reflect OSM as a truly member-oriented organisation. Because the proposal will involve several administrative overheads, I would also propose that the proposed "Outreach" department be renamed as "Member Services" with a team responsible for (a) admitting new members, (b) maintaining the membership list and advising the Secretary who has membership privileges, and (c) with the assistance of other teams, promoting OSM membership—opportunities and benefits. |
|
@mbabker: Thanks, Michael for your thoughts. I hope I am not out of my mind even if I'm out of lockstep with the consensus here. I have no disagreement with the principles upon which OSS is designed, developed and maintained. I have not written—nor is it my view—that people should not be compensated somehow for their involvement with OSS projects. Luca's proposal (with or without my suggestions) are not geared to changing those principles. Let me re-iterate my support for the founding principles for the existence of OSM (what I have written elsewhere in this discussion), viz.:
My view has not changed in this regard. Furthermore, OSM's charter (that I have paraphrased) should not fundamentally be changed, i.e.
I hope I'm not out of my mind if that's my understanding of what OSM exists to do. My involvement in this discussion is motivated, in part, by the President's observations made at the last general meeting of the members:
Luca's proposal provides a mechanism that relates to these observations. I support the proposal in principle. It is unfortunate that a number of people have targeted my feedback, comments, suggestions and opinions. It is unfortunate that there appears, in my mind—a mind that I believe reasons OK—to be a kind of martyr complex. I won't be a martyr for any cause and it doesn't facilitate the movement of Luca's proposal if people focus their attention on the possible impact to the hip-pocket nerve rather than from their their hearts', minds' and souls' viewpoint. It would be better to look at the question in these terms:
Rather than divide, isolate minority opinion, instill fear and tear things apart, let's see if we can salvage some good. OSM is provides the stewardship for Joomla. Whether OSM is a good or bad steward is a matter for the members to decide. The ultimate question, however, rests with which members should be entitled to make those decisions. There are a few people here—in this discussion—who have contributed their life's blood to Joomla!; you and Brian and I are among them. I don't think there's any question here about what what we've contributed. We've done some good things—some great things, perhaps—because we love what we do; we have not sought public adulation, nor have we sought recognition: we are quiet achievers. There are an untold number of others who have done similar. We have all made mistakes and we're capable of making further mistakes. Such is the human condition. It is these people—people who have given years to Joomla! and have not been "compensated" (however one can measure that compensation)—who have no entitlement to deciding the merits of OSM's stewardship or to elect and hold accountable the representatives to act as trustees on behalf of the great Joomla community. It is for these people that I support Luca's proposition. I will conclude by saying again:
|
|
I honestly don't care what your intentions are here or what else is happening in the (perpetually flawed) organization. I just felt the need to call out this proposal specifically:
Sorry, but in no way, shape, or form, would it EVER be appropriate to expect that the same people volunteering their time and resources to an organization that does not compensate them in any way, shape, or form also pay said organization for the "privilege" of contributing their time and resources to the organization. It's one thing for an organization to perpetually take advantage of its members and do very little to support said members in return, it's another thing entirely for the organization to also expect those members to pay it to be taken advantage of. |
|
I cannot really offer any further comment on that. Compensation—lack of it (or perceived lack of it)—is not at the heart of the issue. The issue is about extending the membership base and giving the extended membership a say in how OSM operates. It's nothing more than that. How one volunteers one's time is a question that each person can decide; whether one expects some form of compensation for the time they spend is, again, not at the heart of the matter. The issue is about the structure of OSM's membership. The issue is not about controlling how people choose to devote their time. OSM is a corporation; the Joomla project involves a loose-knit community of people. Corporations are legal entities, governed by laws, rules and regulations. Communities are people who come together for the common good; communities survive out of mutual respect for one another. Companies survive because the bottom line has a monetary value. Communities survive because the bottom line is that people matter. If one keeps these two issues in their proper perspective then, perhaps, people may understand what I care about and what keeps me awake at night. |
|
Thank you for your response, based on it I can now safely infer that you see no issue with volunteers being required to provide financial resources to Open Source Matters, Inc., in order to perform the duties to which they volunteer as a member of Open Source Matters, Inc., and that only the financially healthy or capable should be entitled to contribute to organizations which are the stewards of open source software products. |
|
Thanks, Michael. I would, respectfully, phrase my intentions a little differently: I see no issue with people paying money to Open Source Matters, Inc. to become members in order to satisfy the legal requirements that establishes Open Source Matters, Inc. as a not-for-profit member-owned corporation. I believe that members, in a member-owned corporation, are responsible for how the corporate assets (tangible and non-tangible) are managed and that a board of trustees, elected by the members, is accountable to the membership for the management of those assets. I have said nowhere that people who volunteer to the Joomla project should be required to be involved with OSM. I have also not said anywhere that volunteers should be required to do anything (or pay anything). Many people who use Joomla have no interest in OSM. The proposal is only for people who are interested in OSM and who want to have a say in how the organisation operates. The proposal does not limit the extent to which people may wish to volunteer their time to the work of OSM; it also does not mean (or imply) that people who wish to volunteer have to pay for the privilege of volunteering. |
|
@jeckodevelopment thank you for writing down the various things we discussed. I fully agree that a lifetime variant isn’t something we should do. Not just looking at the extension and template clubs, but also the viability of maintaining such variants in the registration. Having one thing too maintain by volunteers is easier then variants. The Class 4 members should indeed be about voting rights for officers (president, vice-president, treasurer and secretary), as well being allowed to join any OSM member meeting and vote for all the OSM related topics. The proposed fee of 20$ or maybe 25$ is a nice value to start with. I wouldn’t exclude anybody for becoming member, this just creates exclusivity and makes it harder to automate this new part. Yes, you could say someone from the Advisory Board needs to be excluded to be independent, this doesn’t necessarily mean not allowed to pay. I agree with saying they don’t have the voting right while being in the role, but we shouldn’t excluded them from having a recurring payed membership. I agree with @sozzled remark about everybody paying, also the people in the departments / teams, but only if they would lose the right to vote for Officers when being part of the team. |
@sozzled I spend every year at least 100 hours, if not multiple, as a member, contributor and maintainer for the CMS. If anyone wants me to pay a fee, and if it is only 1 buck, I am out. The hours i spend count much more than 20 or even 100 bucks in a year. Having to pay one single buck in addition gives me the feeling that my contribution is not recognized and not counted right. |
|
You spend that many hours a month not a year and thank you for that |
|
I spend about a thirty or forty hours every week on Joomla. I also spend over $200 per year to indulge my Joomla hobby. I have written before about some people having a sense of entitlement because they achieve recognition by contributing in various ways to the project. We all contribute in various ways to the project but that should not equate to any entitlement. Some people contribute significant amounts of time and energy and in practical ways and they are not recognised at all (by having a say in how OSM is managed). We should remember that before objecting to membership fees in principle. Anyone who wants to be a member of OSM (Classes 1-4) needs to be a financial member, in my view. No ifs, buts or maybes about it. One rule for everyone (although there can be a sliding scale of fees). I cannot accept less than that. |
|
you are fighting the wrong battle |
|
@sozzled. I've spent most of the last 11 months working on the JED 4 rewrite. Time I can give as I'm between contracts but money I cannot. Money being needed will make the volunteers even scarcer. |
|
A few thoughts...
-- Laura |
|
Well, I am distributing my code since Trash Bin was an exclusively hardware device, so my perception about this might be outdated, but I am seconding here @richard67 in some of his opinions. Open source for me is all about contribution. Contribution with code, ideas... and not money. I will do that until I will be able to do that - and I did it in this Joomla/Mambo case for near 15 years BEFORE I became a team member with voting rights. It's a bit odd for me to buy your voting right - here or anywhere. So I am sure, that when I would not be able anymore to donate my time for the project I will not demand for myself any voting rights. The "voters" should be the "citizens" who are building the Joomla village. Period. |
|
1 head 1 vote doesn't works with paid membership...imho.... class 4 members should'nt have vote rights, but instead the right to be listened, from Board , Departments,Teams etc.... my 0.02 $ |
It is an honor, privilege and pleasure to volunteer my time to assist the Joomla project in any and every endeavour.
Again, this isn't about what individuals do or how they contribute in various ways. As I wrote earlier, there can always be a sliding scale in what people can be asked to pay. The Board can adopt a sliding scale payment mechanism but, as I also wrote earlier:
My concerns are not about some failure to recognise the various contributions that people make, or even a failure to compensate people for what they do. This is about ensuring fairness and equity. I don't know of any member-based organisation where the members don't pay something. I probably pay over $200 per year to the dozen or so associations that I belong to (and have voting rights within) and I give those associations zero amount of my time to help; my membership dues pay for the services that I enjoy from those associations. It's ironic that in one group of people I strongly identify with, to which I devote my waking hours and pay zero membership fees, I have zero say in how that group is organised. You get what you pay for. If people have a stake in the organisation (and a voice in how the organisation is run), they are more likely to want to see that organisation's objectives succeed and more positively motivated to participate. We give what we give—sometimes selflessly and sometimes selfishly. Some people carry more of the workload than others.
I can't agree to that condition (regardless of whether the motion is passed by the members or not) and I can't join as a Class 4 member under that condition.
Working groups exist to execute a specific parcel of work; they're not intended to survive for more and a short period of time (like "breakout groups" at conferences who contribute their findings or parcel of work at the conference's plenary/cognate session). It's entirely within the purview of OSM Board to regulate what teams exist and how they're organised; it's also within the remit of a team to delegate parcels of work to certain team members. The problem at the moment is the By-Laws that differentiate between who have voting rights and who don't. Membership should be open and accessible to anyone who wishes to join. That's a way of re-stating the President's view. Think about it. |
|
We need more people to join the project, and we need to enlarge the voter's base - these are crucial points in building a future for the Joomla community. This is not a question - this is obvious. The questions are related to how we will do it, which approach is better, where are the pitfalls, the traps we should avoid, and also where are the target groups we can easily bring in, keep closer, make them feel that they are part - IMPORTANT part - of this community. I was really disappointed to have only a fistful of people participating in the last semi-annual meeting, for example. An if we want more people involved here, we need to show respect for what they are putting on the table, and giving them voting rights is the best way to do that. Again - the question is NOT if we need to do this, the questions are related with HOW we will do it. |
|
Here's the deal: there is one director who—according to the Volunteers Portal—has only two people in their department! In other words, if the rules remain unchanged—that only members of teams within departments can vote for their DC—then the only people who can vote for this person are themself and two other people (one of whom happens to be an officer). So, there you have it: a DC who has five teams (but three of those teams have no members) who can vote—and has voted—to remove any of the officer roles on the Board (because of a quirk in the By-Laws), who has not written a report for the past seven months ... need I say more? This is wrong! This is iniquitous. How can people defend a system that allows for directors to be elected by tiny constituencies that do not represent the community's wishes? In fact, in the case I have cited, if neither of the remaining team members in this department do not vote at all, the director can nominate, vote and be re-elected unanimously all by oneself! This is not an isolated example. There are two other departments that have less than ten members (according to the Volunteers Portal). I am not questioning the relevance of these departments, the activities they purport to undertake nor am I questioning the integrity of the people involved. I am questioning the system. |
|
@sozzled I dont think you will find anyone other than Hugh who thinks the situation in that department is plain wrong and despite him telling the other board members to act more professionally he has not led by example. The issue people are having is with your insistence that everyone pays. |
That's not the issue and I think most people would disagree with this statement. This isn't about me, anyway. Play the ball, mate, don't play the man. Debate the issue, don't attack the person who has an idea that you disagree with. Everyone? I don't recall writing that. Whatever proposal is put to a general meeting, and if it gains a two-third majority approval, will be the way things go. However, as Brian and I can't vote, we have to accept the majority decision. |
|
A paying membership with voting rights is not a good idea. I understand that paying membership might improve the financial sustainability. We need more volunteers to help out in the project. Since 2005 I've spent countless hours of my time to the Joomla project in the joomla.org community and in the international Joomla community. A small reward for helping officially in the joomla.org community is that I have a say in the project (with a vote). A paying membership of 20 USD per year to get voting rights, does not feel fair. Furthermore it feels like my volunteer time is valuated at 20 USD per year. |
|
Which is pretty much why my proposal from all those years ago was for a supporter club and not a membership. I do think we need to address that only a small % of active contributors in the community have any say. Being a team member often means a commitment to a regular contribution. For so many reasons many active contributors do not wish to or unable to commit to that so despite possibly extensive contributions they get no vote. |
|
Do you support the concept of a paid contributions scheme that confers voting privileges upon its members? |
|
Another thing regarding voting: |
|
Unless voting rights are reformed, there is no chance to get new people in the leadership. |
|
sorry for the hijack...but i still ask myself why ? What stops you from joining a team? #11 ...and what a paid memberships can do it better? |
|
You're hijacking this discussion. Anyway, you've already got your answer. :) |
|
Maybe I should clarify my statement above about me not being willing to pay. What I meant is that I don't want to pay for being a member in the CMS maintainer team and the JBS, because being a member allows me to coordinate with other team members in a direct communication channel beside GitHub, like we have in Glip. I can discuss stuff with people there so for me it is a benefit to be in a team and not just be a contributor on GitHub. But if it turns out that voting rights are coupled to some kind of paid membership, and I can continue to be in the teams and not have voting rights because I don't pay any membership fee, I can live with that. Just don't force me to pay for being a maintainer and bug fixer. |
|
The purpose of this proposal is not primarily a means to generate income. If we look only at that income-generating element of the proposal—isolated from all other factors (viz. voting privileges)—then let's conduct a "quick and dirty" cost/benefit and risk assessment analysis. The proposal (short form)Luca's initial proposal above sets out four classes of members:
The introduction of Class 4 does not limit the membership privileges exercisable by Classes 1-3. Luca's proposal—it's not OSM-approved policy—is that
How much income is expected to be generated by adopting a paid membership fee?We can only speculate how many people may be attracted to paying an annual membership fee but the following working assumptions are made to assist in calculating an estimate:
A further assumption is made that there is no decrease in the number of Class 1, 2 and 3 members over time. The total number of members, by the end of the first year of operation, would be in the order of one hundred people. The income generated by introducing a paid membership scheme—voluntary for Classes 1, 2 and 3 but a requirement for Class 4—is estimated at between $160 to $520 in the first year. I would hardly describe the proposed approach as improving OSM's financial stability to any great extent. Other people are entitled to dispute the calculations I've made and offer their own versions together with any assumptions they make in arriving at a different financial impact; however, I do not think that the proposal, as outlined by Luca, will (a) significantly increase the number of members, and (b) significantly impact OSM's source of income. Is anyone forcing anyone to pay anything?This was never the intention of Luca' proposal and it misrepresents the views, comments and feedback that Luca sought when he created this discussion.
I may have personal views about Luca's proposal but I am setting those views aside in order to allow the discussion to continue based on the inherent benefits that his proposal seeks to attain, namely (a) increase the number of members, and (b) as a spin-off from that, add a few extra dollars into OSM's finances. |
There is only one way to find out |
|
There are a few ways to find out:
|
|
Maybe a non binding "straw poll" should not be make for the one and only proposal. Maybe the proposal should be broken down into particular aspects or parts on which people give a vote, or there should be different variants of the proposal or different proposals. If we just ask people to say yes or no to one complete proposal we might after that not know which parts of it were more and which less accepted, and very likely the proposal will not be accepted because everybody can find a part which he or she doesn't like and so maybe say "I like most of it, but as a complete thing it is not what I want, so I say no", and then nothing will change. With getting a more detailed picture on what people like on it and what not, we can modify and improve the proposal and then go into another iteration, another poll. At the end it is important that we get a broad acceptance for a change and not just a 51 % to 49 % vote for or against. Broad acceptance among members (as defined now) and among all other active people in the community. |
I agree and it may be better to conduct an opinion survey instead. The subject of the opinion survey could be Do you support the idea of introducing an additional membership group within OSM?Open Source Matters, Inc. [OSM] is a not-for-profit, member-based organisation that owns the Joomla! trademark, intellectual property, copyright, and rights to distribution of software and services derived from the work of volunteers. Joomla! is not OSM. OSM owns Joomla!
n. If you have further questions, or expressions of interest not covered by this survey, please see #13
Regardless of the results of the opinion survey (or poll), to change the By-Laws requires a two-thirds majority at a general meeting. If the results of the poll are close (e.g. 60-40 or less) it will be interesting to see if a two-thirds majority will adopt a change to the By-Laws. If the results of the poll are statistically significant (i.e. 80-20 with twenty-five or more respondents) it may improve the likelihood of passing a change to the By-Laws but there are no certainties when it comes to how people cast their vote on the day, are there? |
|
The question if class 3 members have to pay, too, is missing. |
|
@richard67: I drafted the survey questions in fifteen minutes. No one forced me to do this; I was under no obligation to do this; I have nothing to gain from doing this. I volunteered my time. It's a first draft; it can be improved. If a survey goes ahead then the final version will be different; that's not for me to decide: I won't be running the survey. I don't know if a survey will go ahead. As I say, I am just a volunteer. |
The original proposal says, no fees except for class 4. Why there are so many arguments over a non-existent thing? |
|
Thanks. The system proposed by sozzled is far more complex than benefits. |
|
for clarity, I NEVER proposed (and never meant to) to impose fees to all membership classes. |
|
your proposal was perfectly clear. it is michael who has hijaaked and twisted the proposal |
@jeckodevelopment You were absolutely clear with that. It was @sozzled ‘s idea, not part of your proposal |
Totally untrue and unfounded. Luca asked for feedback, comments, suggestions for improvement, opinions, etc. I offered my comments and suggestions as Luca requested. To suggest otherwise is twisting my words. I also asked @brianteeman a couple of questions; Brian has chosen to not answer my questions (or he has not seen them, I don't know). If this discussion has been hijacked it has not been my fault. People are free to offer their own opinions as they wish; I have offered mine. If people wish to characterise other people as cyber-terrorists, hijackers or evil-doers, that's unhelpful and disrespectful. So, if that's how people feel—that commenting is a form of hijacking—then what does that say? As I have written in another place, I am available, at any time, to discuss—with me in private—any matters I've raised here (or elsewhere) if people wish to do that. No-one has taken me up on that offer. If, however, people simply attack individuals without attempting to understand the motivation that drives them, then this discussion will simply become a source of vindictive nastiness. I have little left to give to this conversation. |
|
I've had a gut-full of people telling me how to think, when and where to express my thoughts, and then being attacked for what I think. Therefore, on reflection, I fully support, endorse and encourage members of OSM to approve Luca's proposal without amendment. |
This comment was marked as disruptive content.
This comment was marked as disruptive content.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
A new class of membership
Introduction
Open Source Matters, Inc. is a membership organization, meaning that members have certain duties and rights, including voting rights based on their membership.
Classes and Elections
The current structure of the corporation has 3 different classes of membership:
When this structure was implemented in 2017, the classes had a great degree of importance because the election system introduced worked by class, where:
So the system was conceived to be “representative”, with votes tallied by majority in several elections and Class 1 members (Board) elected with only 10 votes (1 for each Department).
Over the years, the corporation moved to a “flat” system based on the “one-head one vote” methodology for the Class 1 elections, in which each Member (independently of their class) had one vote for each of the Officer roles (President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer).
This way enlarged the voting base for the Officers elections, keeping but improving the representation system for the other elections:
So the new system is evidently more democratic than the one introduced in 2017 with the new structure.
The Membership Base
When the structure was implemented in 2017, the organization counted roughly 200 members.
Due to the rules, the required commitment and other internal and external causes, the membership base has shrunk over the years, consisting in only 87 members (Class 1, 2 and 3) at the latest round of elections (July 2021).
This means that 87 members have the right to vote for the Officers (Class 1) and shape the future of the project.
Over the years there have been several discussions inside and outside the community and the common “rant” consisted in the fact that a very low amount of people can directly influence the project leadership and direction.
Also many people that have interest in Joomla and don’t have the time or the opportunity to contribute in any official capacity (any membership Class) are kept out from voting for the Officers.
The Proposal
The current structure in term of representation has one major issue: the perceived “barrier” that prevents people joining the official teams.
There are surrounding works to find out and resolve such barriers and allow volunteers to join the organization.
This proposal instead aims to allow Joomla stakeholder to have a say in the future and leadership of the Project, even when they don’t have time and opportunity to directly contribute to the Project and its activities.
Goals:
The Class of Supporters
Being Open Source Matters, Inc. a membership corporation (1) nothing prevents creating an additional class of membership dedicated to supporters, those who want to support the Project, but they don’t have the opportunity, the time or the skills to do it.
They could still contribute sustaining the project just by paying a membership fee.
By paying the membership fees, such group of stakeholders would:
The Class 4 Members
Class 4 Members are the Supporters, those who regularly pay the annual Membership Fee.
The Membership Fee
The Class 4 Members are required to pay the annual membership fee.
The membership fee is 20 USD per year and is not tax deductible.
The income generated by the payment of membership fees shall contribute to the general corporate budget.
Membership fees can be paid through PayPal.
Members of the other classes (1, 2, 3) are not required to pay the membership fee.
Bylaws Amendments and Procedure
This type of changes in the Department List and structure would need Members Approval (as defined in § 3.01(Q) of the Bylaws) pursuant to Section 4.01(B) and Section 5.02 of the Bylaws.
A Special Meeting of the Members of the Corporation needs to be called to present and discuss the proposed amendment pursuant to Article XI of the Bylaws.
A dedicated vote would be called to approve or reject the proposed amendment to the Bylaws. ⅔ of votes in favor are needed to approve the changes.
Proposed amendments to the Bylaws
Section 3.01(R)
“Members” means the Class 1 Members, Class 2 Members, Class 3 Members and Class 4 Members of the Corporation (as defined in Section 4.01 ).
Section 3.01(JJ)
JJ. “Supporter” means a Class 4 Member fo the Corporation (as defined in Section 4.01(A)(4).
Section 4.01(A)(4)
(4) Any individual meeting the conditions set forth in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4.01(A)(1) that is supporting the Corporation by paying a regular membership fee shall be qualified to become a Class Four Member of the Corporation (a “Class 4 Member”). The Secretary shall list and maintain on the Volunteers Portal all such persons so qualified whose membership has not been terminated pursuant to Section 4.04. Such listing shall constitute the Class 4 Members.
Section 4.04(A)(8)
(8) In the case of a Class 4 Members, at such time as such Class 4 Member ceases to pay the regular membership fee. In such case, removal of the member is automatic and does not follow the procedure defined in Section 4.04(A)(7). The Treasurer shall be responsible to verify the payment status of the membership fee.
All reactions