Draft currently contains:

https://agora.nasqueron.org/Statuts (fr/en) looks like an efficient minimal structure:

• Nasqueron isn't incorporated (we'll exist as a de facto entity composed of interested members, assuming their own responsibilities, not as a legal association loi 1901)
• We can incorporate later if needed (currently it's not, we don't plan irl events and we don't buy things at credit - so members responsibilities aren't engaged)
• Nasqueron contains special interest groups (a model like CentOS for example)
• any SIG can take responsibilities for the project as a whole (e.g. operations / servers infrastructure) or can focus on a project (e.g. Tasacora)
• decisions are taken by consensus
• there is no formal approach to create a SIG
• there is a formal approach (get a consensus among all members) to get responsibilities for the SIG (e.g. represent Nasqueron to an external services like Freenode)
• there is no board

It's flexible, and manages the trust chain for delegation and representation.

Do you agree with them?

Feedback

Rama

First, it wants as a disclaimer to remember to not have the capabilities to give a legal opinion, and stresses on the difficulties to see what are the problems we could have in the future.

In such lack of information available context, @rama doesn't have any special opinion on the bylaws and the gouvernance model.

Xavier

Decisions by consensus model is weak to get some complicated decisions like exclude a member. @dereckson recognizes it's a worthwhile concern and stresses on the code of conduct for that, with a delegation to a SIG to enforce it with the right to exclude the member.

Yassine

@Sandlayth doesn't see any other issue than the consensus one.

[ This task isn't in my immediate radar. ]