[Rets-dev] Governance Document

[Matt Lavallee]

Indeed, I entirely respect "pay to play", and given the scenarios, it is
likely difficult to create an all-encompassing limitation.   However, I
implore the future governing body to consider the possibilities where a
workgroup may be comprised of a dozen members, four (or more) of which are
either directly or indirectly affiliated with a single organization.  This
is particularly true given that $500 is a trivial cost compared even to the
travel to meeting venues.  The governance as a whole seems to prevent a
plutocracy, but in small workgroup effort, the likelihood may be high.

-Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rets-dev-bounces at rets.org 
> [mailto:rets-dev-bounces at rets.org] On Behalf Of Michael Wurzer
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 7:58 PM
> To: rets-dev at rets.org
> Subject: RE: [Rets-dev] Governance Document
> 
> We discussed several possibilities for defining entities and 
> limiting votes per entity, but chose instead to require "skin 
> the game" to vote.  In the case of general voting, that means 
> having participated in a work group or having attended two of 
> the last three general sessions.  
> 
> Focusing on participation prevents or deters deck stacking 
> without having to get into what are complex issues of who is 
> related to who and what constitutes an entity for voting.  I 
> believe the proposal also leaves to each work group the 
> ability to define their own voting procedures or what "skin 
> in the game" means for voting in that work group.
> 
> Michael
> --------------------------
> Michael Wurzer
> President and CEO
> FBS Data Systems
> mwurzer at fbsdata.com
> www.flexmls.com/blog
> 800.437.4232 (office)
> 701.306.9341 (mobile)