[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [mosig] [ossig] MOSIG: Formation of Company - Inaugural Meeting17th July 2004
That's true because the document I provided is some other people's legal
document. I didn't realise the implications of making that offer. I
offered it in good faith to help out the process of the formation of
MOSSIA and MOSSIA only. I didn't expect that the Open Source Community
think that it should be their right to have it and also expect the
document to be distributed to anyone as if it is a GPL document.
The process I described was one that we have experienced when we formed
the equivalent of MOSSIA almost 10 years ago. I was asked for a
suggestion and I did but that need not be followed. I find it most
useful to hear other people's experiences when I want to do similar
things and its good to discuss things at the right forum, realising that
everyone will have their intepretation of what constitutes the right forum.
I guess I do have problems trying to gauge who I am discussing business
processes with names like BIGrat, not knowing who she? he? or it?
is.... :) No offence as I am in the medical field and anything is
possible.. Maybe its my age too.
Molly
BIGrat wrote:
>there appears to be some presense of paranoia ;-) and not to mention
>too much of wood that hides the forest! ;-)
>
>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:38:53 +0800, Tze-Meng Tan <tmtan@opensos.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Molly
>>
>>On Jul 14, 2004, at 14:07, Molly Cheah wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I had explained the mechanism during the 1st meeting before it was
>>>agreed that we work on the MOSSIG version of the Shareholders
>>>collective agreement document. Here are the steps:
>>>
>>>
>>The first "meeting" was not a formal affair, it was very clearly termed
>>a "brainstorming session" - the key point of that session was whether
>>to form an association, company, co-op or whatever entity ... obviously
>>company was chosen .... it was an *ideas* session, not a decision
>>making meeting, thats what brainstorming means
>>
>>Anyway
>>
>>I was under the impression that during the first "brainstorming
>>session" that someone would scan and OCR the document (thanks Jason)
>>then the document is distributed to interested parties to read through
>>and comment on. The WG was formed to start work on cleaning up the
>>document - not finalise it for acceptance. It seems like anyone who
>>couldn't make it to the first WG meeting is excluded from the process
>>of creating this document, why, I mean thanks to the 5 of you who made
>>the time for this but why exclude everyone else, its like there is
>>something to hide, this is especially true when you are trying to get
>>this document accepted by forcing it through a single meeting .... an
>>*18* page legal document, not seen by the original WG, put up for
>>acceptance in the very first meeting ? Does this make sense ?
>>
>>
>>
>>>1. Acceptance of the content of the shareholders collective agreement
>>>document by those who want to buy shares into this company.
>>>
>>>
>>unless we look at the document, how are we going to accept it.....hmm
>>.... I don't like the idea of rushing through the document on the 17th
>>to reach an acceptance decision ... if anything it should be everyone
>>attending take a copy back to study .... I for one want *my* lawyer to
>>have to look through it since Legalese might as well be Greek to me...
>>once my lawyer has given me the feedback, then and only then will I be
>>in a position to accept or suggest changes or decline ... this need
>>time, not during the 17th meeting ... sorry, no disrespect intended to
>>Ammar's mum, (thanks btw), but I'm an Open Source Advocate .... More
>>Eyes On The Code Means More Bugs Are Found, Better Code Can Be Written
>>... same principle applies to *any* document
>>
>>
>>
>>>2. Incorporation of a RM2 company by 2 people. The company will
>>>contain clauses which refers specifically to accepting others based on
>>>the collective agreement.
>>>
>>>
>>why is this step necessary, if on the 17th all 8 people agree why
>>should we go for the minimum 2? This was not agreed on in the first
>>brainstorming session, the meeting on the 17th was supposed to be the
>>*real* meeting to decide on how to do, not the brainstorming session
>>
>>
>>
>>>3. Those who want to buy shares into the company has to pay up and
>>>commit by signing up in the signing page/schedule1 which will then be
>>>part of the collective agreement document.
>>>
>>>
>>yes but like I said, I want *my* lawyer to look at it first.
>>
>>
>>
>>>4. An AGM is called and only those who had paid and signed up will be
>>>able to attend this shareholders meeting. The business of the AGM will
>>>include election of directors, incorporating the contents of the
>>>agreement into the M&A of the RM2 company etc etc etc.
>>>
>>>
>>this is getting ahead, we haven't even formally decided on a course of
>>action, I will repeat, ad nauseam if necessary, the first session was a
>>brainstorming session
>>no decision was made on details - especially when people were barred
>>from attending the session for reasons unknown - from what I understand
>>purely personal reasons
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
>>with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
>with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message