Proposals

[Graeme Gregory]

On 22/10/11 00:20, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> On 20.10.2011 22:36, Graeme Gregory wrote:
>> On 20/10/11 21:32, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>>> On 20.10.2011 16:38, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 14:41 +0200, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
>>>>> On 10/19/2011 02:38 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
>>>>>> Can someone prepare text for us to vote for relaxing the attendance
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> proxy requirements?
>>>>> Do you have specific limits in mind? attendance requirement as in
>>>>> physical
>>>>> presence (I assume this can not be relaxed)? Proxy requirements?
>>>>> allowing more
>>>>> people to be proxy?
>>>> Just to summarise, I believe our existing statutes require that:
>>>>
>>>> a) Each person is limited to acting as a proxy for 2 other people.
>>>> b) People have to attend a GA at least once every two years or they risk
>>>> becoming extraordinary members of the GA and lose voting rights.
>>>>
>>>> The proposals are to:
>>>>
>>>> a) Increase the number of people a person can proxy for from 2 to 4
>>> What about section 38 of the German civil code? It reads:
>>>
>>> "Membership is not transferable and not inheritable. The exercise of
>>> membership rights cannot be entrusted to another person."
>>>
>>> In my understanding, this means that it's illegal to act as a proxy to
>>> vote for someone else.
>>>
>>>
>> A proxy is not transferring your membership rights, it is merely the act
>> of asking someone to represent you. It is no different to email being a
>> proxy for voting on internet votes.
> It is very well different, because an internet vote is actually bound to
> a topic. An email just transfers my ballot. A proxy doesn't - at least
> not with the proxy form I've seen.
>
> I wasn't saying that you're transfering membership to a proxy, but a
> proxy *excercises another person's membership rights*, because
> eventually the proxy decides how to use another person's vote. Voting is
> one of the most essential membership rights. I don't understand how this
> could be interpreted in another way.
>
>
I think you should go back a re-read the proxy instructions there is an 
essential section

"in accordance with my instructions"

So my proxy is not deciding how to use my vote, he is raising his hand 
in proxy of my hand being raised as I cannot physically do this at the 
meeting. So he is no different to an email containing my instructions.

Graeme