Clarify that members are natural persons #49
Conversation
yrodiere
force-pushed
the
patch-1
branch
2 times, most recently
from
daab942 to
0cbdbbe
Compare
|
LGTM |
| Commonhaus Foundation members are natural persons, and join as individuals. | ||
| This excludes in particular legal entities, which are exclusively represented as part of the [advisory board][]. | ||
|
|
||
| Each member has a voice, can raise issues (for all members, for all project leads, for the council), and is entitled to a vote in member decisions (which includes both elections and referendums). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Non members can raise issues too I reckon and thus not a special trait given to members is it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you have any thoughts on the types of issues a non-member would need to raise with the Foundation itself as opposed to a particular project?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't think of one specifically but also can't think of reason why it should be not allowed. Is the plan to limit raisih issues to the foundation to members only ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can update the wording in a new PR, but this is scoped to the foundation operation itself (not individual projects). Discussions can be raised by anyone (there won't be a limit), but non-members won't be able to schedule those for a vote (for example), where a member would. Based on decision-making process, that member would then be the sponsor to take it the rest of the way through.
That wasn't obvious to me, at least. Upon reading the membership section I didn't find any explicit mention of it.
I think "natural persons" (yes, plural) is correct in legal linguo, but I'll let native speakers confirm.
I suppose we could add " without restriction of citizenship or origin to the extent allowed by U.S. law.", but I guess that goes without saying.