On Sep 11 08:23, Stephanie Perrin ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> I agree. I think it is entirely problematic to provide more votes
> for larger organizations.

> I also share a concern about differentiating between the
> participation of a member as a rep of an organization, or as an
> individual. People should declare their status and that is an end of
> it.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

But if we take away the extra vote weight from organizations and allow
people to participate in one role only, effectively limiting who
organiztions can appoint as their repreasentatives, and as we already
have a rule that elected offices are personal even when the person in
question is the representative of an organization, the net effect
would be almost indistinguishable from disallowing organizational
members altogether and having just individual members.

Which might not be a bad way to go.

It obviously would mean changing the charter. But so would
just changing the vote weights and arguably just about all
proposed solutions to the problem.

And while I don't have a strong opinion about the vote weights
or dual voting &c, I do feel strongly that whatever we do, we
should do it "by the book", follow the letter of the Charter,
amending it first if need be.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen