New Statutes

Having received the statutes I was overwhelmed. After a first rough examination I have several feelings about the statutes:

1. The document seems to be oversized.
2. Are all these phrases really necessary to get the approval from official side ?
3. Some topics are well described, others not.

I would like to have your opinion about the statutes ...


Janus Gersie

I must admit I did not understand everything. But I have a basic question "why should things be complicated when they can be simple?"

No more comment? Does anyone care about these new statutes?

Because it's published in a complicated format, it's really hard to comment it. I think it would have been better if the changes had been written in another color.

Also, in some cases, I don't understand the changes. In general, we say that "if it does bring something better, a change is not needed". I don't think the writer of the new statutes thought the same...

I am a bit disappointed because I have been asked in Frankfurt (by Laurent Garnier) if I could imagine to work on the new statutes. I agreed but never heard anything from anybody ...

My questions are:

Was it really nesessary to write new statutes?
What was wrong with the old ones?
Who gave the call to write new statues?
What if they failed at the next congress?

Thossa
yes it was necessary to change the statutes.
I hope I wasn't the only one who say what is wrong with those statutes in january.
the meeting in frankfurt agreed on it to change the statutes.
the current board is responsible if changes won't be accepted by the congress, because they started without asking first the associations. A lot of time could be saved, if the board first would ask what changes are wished by the members.

Heinz

Thossa wrote:My questions are:

Was it really nesessary to write new statutes?
What was wrong with the old ones?
Who gave the call to write new statues?
What if they failed at the next congress?

Right now everybody (proposed) received the new version but I believe nobody can understand it...

If it was important to changes the statutes, it would have been necessary to say:
- what points?
- why?
- what should be the new option?

But the way it is presented now looks like another bad joke.

That would be the second option how the board should have done it.
I'm pretty sure that the feedback is very limited now, but unfortunately that doesn't mean that the changes will pass the congress in september.

Heinz

Admin wrote:Right now everybody (proposed) received the new version but I believe nobody can understand it...

If it was important to changes the statutes, it would have been necessary to say:
- what points?
- why?
- what should be the new option?

But the way it is presented now looks like another bad joke.