<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/9/11 Craig Bradney <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cbradney@zip.com.au">cbradney@zip.com.au</a>></span><br><div><br>[…] <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><br></div>
Louis, yes, I agree, although I think we need to remove voting rights or<br>
similar.</blockquote><div><br>Absolutely. We don't want a company to take over or to have simply the possibility to take over. <br><br>Another tought is the Status are one thing and they define the "frame" of the association. The Rules can be more specific, enter into details, and can address such issues as the membership, for instance. I see that more or less like the Law and the Regulations. I understand that changing the Status is always possible but we have to refer to the legal authority, while the Rules can be discussed and defined among the members. If I understand well, my take is we should leave as much room as we can to the members, and keep the tight frame according to law but not more than that. By the way, all I read here in that document seems to be pretty much that. So it's not that I disagree in some way. :)<br>
<br>Louis<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Craig<br></blockquote></div><br>
</div>