lilafisch wrote:
>>> KJR is aimed at groups that are led by under 25yr-olds. However if someone
>>> 26 or over is voted into a position by under 25yr-olds that is ok, too.
I wrote:
>> Could you clarify what is being voted on here -- what does a
>> 'position' mean in this context? Is there a mini-committee at the MUC
>> branch, or is this to be a mentor or even just to contribute to our
>> software?
>>
>> Also, who is doing the voting -- other contributors, or including the
>> competitors? If it does include competitors this seems a little
>> paradoxical, as, without the contributors, there would be no SR for
>> them to vote about.
Johannes wrote:
> We plan to found a regristed assosiation "Student Robotics Munich".
> [..]
> Thus, "vote" means that
> the leaders of the assosiation are elected by the members. Also, it is
> allowed that there are some older people who even are allowed to serve for
> example as treasurer.
Ok, so what does this mean in practical terms? Could we end up with a
scenario where competitors stood for, and won organisational positions
within the new organisation? While unlikely, this is clearly a
situation that would be undesirable and could make it very hard for us
to actually do things.
So, to confirm, everyone over the age of 25 who wanted to help out in
Munich would need to be voted into a position by the younger members?
This sounds like a rather complex thing to organise if SR Munich got
bigger, particularly if the competitors qualified as voting members
and a majority was needed.
Off-list, lilafish suggested that if it became an issue, we could
split the organisation into two parts, only one of which would be a
KJR member. Is this viable, and if so, how does it resolve the above
issues?
>> Note that this age limit, if applied in the UK, is younger than all
>> the original SR members.
> As the members of the assosiation will be German pupils and blueshirts, the
> age of the British blueshirts is not important.
My point here was also that as the organisational group in Munich
ages, the chances are that the people more likely to want to be
organisational positions are going to have an older average age. It
would be a shame if at one point we ran out of younger people able to
actually vote these people in. This should be considered when we tie
ourselves in to requiring that they need to be voted in by the younger
members.
Following that, is there a limit to the number of 'older' contributors
a group could have?
I realise I'm asking quite a lot of questions -- please don't think
I'm against doing this; I'd just like to make sure that we've
considered (and documented!) all the implications first [0].
Thanks,
Peter
[0] Also, I just like knowing _everything_.