I’m in agreement with Elisabeth on the question of SIG representation, in that I think that COs (as currently constituted, largely by region) offer the primary point  of membership for DH matters. I think SIGs are important, but I see a difference between interest groups and membership organizations

I support scenario 1, as it seems to strike the best balance between ensuring the continuing health of ADHO, moving ADHO towards a leaner organizational structure, and distributing decision-making power more equitably among the community of COs. At a moment when DH is proliferating across the globe, scenario 1 offers us the best chance to hear the voices of new organizations and new members while retaining the overall strength of the organization as a whole.

correction: my good example was to be DHN not a non existant DHD. The German speaking is called DHd.

Thanks

Thanks

[it currently has three Partner Organization: DH Benelux, Russian DH Network, Czech DH Initiative.]

This needs to be corrected, because EADH has only one Partner Organisation DH Benelux

[SIGs may be proposed by any group of ADHO members]

Members of ADHO are COs. Thus what is meant by members needs to be specified, for example “by any group of members of COs of ADHO”

[Note. There are currently 3 AOs: AIUCD (Italy); DHd (German-speaking); DHN (Nordic countries). All have a relationship with EADH as their partner CO.]

This needs to be corrected, because EADH has 5 AOs: AIUCD (Italy); DHd (German-speaking); DHN (Nordic countries),  CZDHI (Czech), DH Russia (Russia)

[chapter]

this term should not be used. It is not clear what it means. There is no definition of it anywhere

According to me B.1 Associate Organisations (AO) contains contradictions (see “allied to ADHO”).

I am also unsure whether ADHO should be responsible for determining the size of membership of an AO of a CO, for assigning it to a CO (there might be special cases which require such an assignement, but we should not make this the rule). I am against that ADHO establishes that an AO can be associated with more than one CO because this would make the handling of structural terms and finance unviable.

The whole matter of AOs should be discussed with EADH because it is up to now the only CO which has AOs. It has a lot of experience and can serve as a model for other COs which are thinking on having AOs.

My comment refers to AOs alone. If the members of  ADHO are COs and if AOs are AOs of COs then the responsibility with respect to disbursements (the only exception might be Scenario 3) is the responsibility of the COs, i.e. ADHO has no influence / nothing to say on this.