On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 01:21, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Thanks a lot for commenting. I have now incorporated your comments
> improved the document and sent to NCSG EC for review and approval. They
> have until 21st September to review, make changes if needed and approve. If
> they don't make major substantive changes, we won't do a second reading.

>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gt7vfXOl1RjTdh_iQd7E4yUjEiGez24jexNodQopgks/edit?usp=sharing

Looking at that now there's a lot I find confusing. To keep this
manageable, I'll pick just one now:


"1.Where an individual member of the NCSG also belongs to a large NCSG
member organization, the individual member may retain the individual
membership under the following circumstances:
[...]

b. Where no more than 10  NCSG members who are members of NCSG in
individual capacity are also members or employees of the same
organization;"


How do you propose to implement this?

With an individual applicant you could technically ask if they're
already members of a member organization, but I'm not sure that'd
be legal - membership in political organizations and the like is
sensitive information and asking for and retaining it is at least
somewhat problematic if not outright illegal.

And you'd have to require them to notify NCSG if they ever join such
an organization or if an organization they belong to joins NCSG later,
and they might not even notice that.

And you most certainly can't ask an organizational applicant to list
their members who are already NCSG members: there's no question that'd
be illegal. Perhaps you could require them to review NCSG member list
to verify there're not too many of their members in already, but even
that would not help in case one joins later.

So we might end up in a situation where someone becomes ineligible
to membership without knowing it - indeed without *anybody* knowing it.

So we'd have unconditional requirements that can't be verified even
when everybody is acting in good faith.

Moreover, I'm not sure the rule in NCSG Charter referred to applies:
The conditions 1-3 under 2.2.5 are alternative categories, and it
would seem to be the limit given under 3 only applies to individuals
joining with that category, not others. That interpretation would also
make my concern above go away, as then the organization in question
would be known. If this was the intent all along, my apologies, then
I'd just suggest rewriting it to make it explicit would be helpful.


So, while I appreciate the concern behind this rule, I think it needs
more thought. As presented it's not really a _procedure_ either, as
there're no implementation details.

Perhaps it'd be good to rethink this from that viewpoint: procedures
for the EC to follow, situations it could or should act in, and how,
rather than just conditions it should fulfill or enforce.

--
Tapani Tarvainen