[EuroPython] EPC as an EuroPython Association SIG

[Dario Lopez-Kästen]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Denis Frère" <denis@aragne.com>


> Le Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 04:06:13AM +0200, Dario Lopez-Kästen pianota:
>
> (I'm adding these lines after I wrote the mail : though I'm answering to
> Dario, this is not personal for him. Through Dario, I'm speaking to all
> of you who feel concerned and answering to various previous mails).

ok

> > All of the above, imho, should lead us to the obvious conclusion: we
need to
> > formalise the way the EuroPython Community organises itself. For various
> > reasons, we need the structure and strength that a formal entity can
give
> > us.
>
> As Tom said : a formal entity is not the urgent point if it doesn't
> define the way of decision making in its bylaws.

Have you actually read my proposal for bylaws?

>
> For example, now, we would have to decide if we need a formal
> organisation/association and if yes, which one (at least 3 kinds have
> been proposed). But how shall we decide on that first point ?
> Everybody runs and the first one to come back with any legal entity
> rules ?

no, a good idea to do this would be to follow the procedure for gathering
the General Assembly as  outlined in the proposed bylaws... though I must
say that what you are describing pretty much sums up the situation we
have/are heading towards today, at least when it relates to EPC.

> PBF has been created this way, almost the same way as we announced
> EPC2004 : quickly, after a few informal discussions, no real vote, ...
> The quickest on the ball has won. Will you do the same here ?

actually, I am very curious at this statement: exactly what of what I said
gave you that impression?

> I could also say that the formal entity exists : you know it, it's P3B.
> Just become members of P3B and everything is fine. We just have to
> rename it EPA if you want. (That's not my actual proposition, but that
> is one possible proposition too).

if so, this would be a very good example of your own objection: "Everybody
runs and the first one to come back with any legal entity rules",

>
> So the point is : how shall we democratically decide what is democracy
> in a EP association. How shall we decide on the decision process without
> having a decision process defined ? Hackers love recursive games don't
> they ?

porbably hackers do, but like I said above: just follow the procedure for
gathering the General Assembly as outlined in the proposed bylaws.

> > The only thing required to form an EPA based on the above, is to
> > announce a meeting, hold the meeting and elect a board, form the sig,
> > and presto.
>
> Perhaps that you'll also need the acceptance of your rules by that
> vaguely defined community.

again: just follow the procedure for gathering the General Assembly as
outlined in the proposed bylaws. I ask again have you actually read them?

> I also would like to ask that you (all) don't exclude too many people
> because :
> - they are on hollidays for the moment
> - they are working hard and don't follow the mailing-list
> - they have no time to keep chatting
> - they haven't read all Magnus's mails yet ;-)
> - they are not very fluent with English and don't dare to step in the
>   discussion
> - etc.

Good point. Lets follow the procedure outlined in the proposed, but with a
wider time frame, so that everybody gets a chance to catch up on the mails.
Even better, lets have a preparatory meeting first to see if there is enough
interst in actually forming an EPA. If so, lets then make the the world know
that we intend to form an EPA, decide on a date of the formation meeting in,
for instance late august, so that all that are interested in forming the EPA
have a fair chance of discussing the form, the bylaws, write proposals of
bylaws changes, nomitea to the board, etc.

Really, how hard can it be?

>
> English fluency, for example, is a tyranic rule we have to live with.
> I can remember some of you, Democrats, killing softly another guy who
> couldn't defend his point smartly enough because of the language
> knowledge (lack of ...). See how the Greeks are poorly represented in
> our european association. Happy those who are fluent enough, for the
> other ones : "Vae victis" (that's Latin).

Exactly the same can be said about any random language, say... French ,
though I suspect that it will be easier to find bi-lingual people, where one
of the languages is english, outside the domain of the Frech-speaking parts
of Europe.

FYI, I am rally getting severly annoyed at what I percieve as insinuations
that the very mentioning of the formation of an EPA is anti-democratic.

WE didn't go astray and unilateraly decided where the next EPC would be
held, who would be orgnasing it and then told the world about it, WE haven't
unilateraly gone and consulted national lawyers regadring the formalisation
of EPC.

I mean, isn't the very fact that we are havign this discussion in the first
place the *very sign* of a democratic process?

> Conclusion : democracy is a difficult exercise.

Damed right it is. QED.

>We'll have to find a
> real *consensus* for having a good start. I guess we aren't done with
> it before some time, but in the end, I'm glad our announce led to the
> discussion.

of what?

where the next EPC is to be held (aka the "important and pragmatic" thing to
decide)?

Or the actual discussion of a) how things are to be decided, by whom and by
what authority, b) the formalisation of that deciding process?

/dario