My concern still stands, though it has slightly evolved. Based on the last two plenaries that I attended, my experience is that it takes a great deal of time and emotional energy to make sure that all Full Members get to understand the situation we are in. The way I see it, this is because there is a hell lot of elements to take in - going from the legal and procedural stuff but also on things related to the history of how we got here - in combination with emotions running higher than usual because of the high stakes. So the idea of having Associate Members in the round asking questions or sharing opinions I currently find difficult to picture, because I would really like us to use all of our energy into making it through this difficult phase as efficiently and as peacefully as possible.
At the same time I really resonate with what Julia writes above. Plenary meetings are a great opportunity to get to know each other (mutually), so excluding Associate Members by default I would also find a pity. Can it be an option that we ask Team Governance & Working Methods to come with a proposal on this, but that in the meantime we communicate to future Associate Members that we might limit their participation in topics related to building, legal or financial issues?