On Friday 8th, @Lee and I met (online) with Mark to go over the statutes. He did not have major changes to make. We ironed some bugs, but made no fundamental change to the version we had sent it.
This folder contains both the statute file with some new comments and proposed modifications based on that meeting and a PDF with Mark’s own annotations. I need to find some time to review them and come to a final version that can be voted by the GA.
Hello @reeflings, I have made a pass on the statute based on Mark’s comments. The current version (in the same folder already linked above) has a few comments to highlight changes made after the meeting. It is otherwise ready to be approved as far as I am concerned. Please read it ahead of the meeting where we vote on it.
Update: I also had a pass at the charte fondatrice.
I made a couple of minor changes still. Happy to discuss tonight.
Should we not manage to come to a final text tonight, we can also decide to postpone the decision and agree on the text in writing in a couple of days.
As agreed on Wednesday I had a final look at the statutes and the charte fondatrice.
- I felt a little uncomfortable about the Article 3 on the the asbl’s purpose, because a lot of changes had made the text a little chaotic. I went back to the original text from l’Echappée and proposed it beneath the current text as an alternative.
- I made a couple of editorial changes - I used track changes, so easy to see
- The last section on building a self-managed community was still a bit messy and too specific in my view, so I tried to remedy that.
@reeflings, can you please have a look at this, make changes or insert comments if needed and above all, let everybody know when you are ready to sign?
I have done a pass and approved everything you wrote, both in the Charte Fondatrice and in the statute. We now have a fairly clean version of both. @reeflings, can we approve and send?
i have suggested some small track changes and comments in the “charte fondatrice”. thank you for having them into consideration.
Thanks a lot @manuelpueyo. I had a look at your edits and comments and provided some replies and clarifications. Can you please have a look?
Hi! I’ve had a question about the statute at the back of my mind for some time, and I find no better place to ask it than here, under the most recent post about the statute. I don’t need an answer now, but I’d like to get it within a few weeks’ time.
Could you please explain a little bit why you chose to have votes (and membership fees) in the asbl decision-making process per unit, not per member? I ask because this is the way I feel about it now: “Choosing to live with a partner will make me two times less powerful” . Maybe I’d feel better if I’d understand the reasons better…
Thanks for your attention.
Good that you ask the question.
First, for a good understanding I think it’s important to clarify the terms:
- Unit = household = all the adults who will live in it
- Member = one adult
Also important to clarify:
- Every unit gets 2 votes
- Every unit pays 1 membership fee (so it’s 125 euro for a couple)
Next I think it’s important to note that we agreed that we will predominantly use the Governance document, and only use the asbl’s statutes for legal stuff or for situations where we can no longer peacefully agree.
That being said I find it interesting that you interpret the arrangement as if you have less power than somebody who is single. I had never really questioned it. In my view this is what makes the most legal sense: every owner of an apartment (regardless of whether the amount of adults that will live in it) has the same power.
To give you a counterexample: what would we do if some people who are in a polyamourous relationship want to join (say 3), and some of them also wants their mother to move in (+1)? Should we then give 8 votes to the people living in this unit?
I guess that’s how we reasoned. If it comes to a vote (which should be super rare!) every unit gets two votes. So our reasoning favours equality between singles and couples, but I can see that it is also possible to argue the other way around.
Does that answer your question?