TYPO3 Association General Assembly 2026

The General Assembly (GA) 2026 of the TYPO3 Association will take place on 22 April 2026, 13:00 in Düsseldorf, Germany.

All dates and times on this page are in the time zone of the event location.

• Opening of the General Assembly
• Minutes of the last General Assembly (protocol GA 2025)
• Annual report of the associations' boards
• Annual financial statement and reports of the statutory auditors and the business control committee (BCC)
• Grant discharge to the association's board, business control committee, treasurer
• Budget for the running year
• Determination of admission fees and annual dues for all types of members
• Elections of the
  • Board
  • Business Control Committee (BCC)
  • Statutory auditors
• Petitions of the
  • Members
  • Association's board
• Program of activities
• Amendments to the bylaws
• The nomination of the honorary members
• Complaints against executive bodies, resolution on the appeal against expulsion, or rejection of a provisional admission resolution of the association's board
• Various other topics
• Closing of the General Assembly

• 30 January 2026: Invitation sent to all members of the TYPO3 Association
• 7 April 2026, 23:59: Deadline for petitions
• 18 of April 2026, 23:59: Registration ends for on location and remote participation
• 22 April 2026, 13:00–15:00: General Assembly

The registration for the General Assembly 2026 is closed!

By Jens Krumm

The General Assembly resolves

The provisions regarding the admission of new members in §13 (5) and §19 (7) of the By-Laws of the TYPO3 Association shall be amended as follows:

• The Board shall have the authority to decide on the admission of new members based on the submitted applications.
• Decisions of the Board regarding the admission of members shall be final.
• The Board shall ensure transparency by regularly informing the General Assembly about newly admitted members.
• In the event that an application for membership is rejected, the Board shall disclose and reasonably justify such decision to the General Assembly.

Rationale

Under Swiss association law, the General Assembly is the supreme body of the association. However, unless explicitly restricted, the allocation of operational responsibilities – including the admission of members – may be defined by the by-laws and delegated to the Board.

The current model assigns the formal decision on membership admission to the General Assembly. In practice, this leads to procedural and governance challenges.

An informed decision by the General Assembly requires that all candidates for admission are known by name. Ensuring this transparency would require listing and presenting all applicants individually, which becomes increasingly impractical as the number of applications grows.

In addition, the current setup creates a structural inconsistency: applicants may obtain voting rights before their admission is finally approved by the General Assembly. In the event of a rejection, this leads to legal and procedural uncertainty, especially in the context of secret ballots, where votes cannot be retroactively invalidated.

Furthermore, requiring the General Assembly to decide on individual admissions is inefficient and does not scale with a growing, international community.

The proposed change establishes a clear and widely adopted governance model:

• The Board handles the operational process of member admission
• The General Assembly retains oversight through transparency and the election of the Board
• Decisions become consistent, efficient, and legally robust

This aligns the governance structure with common practice in similar organizations while ensuring accountability and transparency.

By Jens Krumm

In the course of upcoming amendments to the By-Laws of the TYPO3 Association, the following editorial and cosmetic updates should be addressed to improve clarity, consistency, and maintainability of the document.

The General Assembly is invited to acknowledge these points and to mandate their consideration alongside substantive changes.

Proposed updates:

1) Removal of obsolete transitional provisions

The following sentence shall be removed:

“The first time the board is elected, the elected members select 4 board members whose term of office is only one year in order to ensure continuity in the board (meaning new elections are held each year).”

2) Handling of historical enactment references

The sentence referring to the initial approval and enactment of the By-Laws

"The bylaws were approved … on 11 April 2018 and come into force … in 2019."
should be removed or moved to a non-normative historical note.

3) Harmonization of communication terminology

References to "written request" or similar wording should be clarified to explicitly include electronic communication and aligned with existing provisions that already allow digital communication.

4) Removal of duplicated provisions - §19, (3) and (13)

Repeated statements, in particular regarding the responsibilities of the Board (e.g. "execution of the decisions of the General Assembly"), should be consolidated into a single, consistent provision.

5) Review of time-dependent election phrasing

Time-dependent wording (e.g. references to "even years" and "odd years") should be reviewed and, where appropriate, replaced with structurally neutral language.

Rationale:

Over time, the By-Laws have evolved and accumulated provisions that are no longer relevant, partially redundant, or inconsistent in terminology. While these do not fundamentally affect the governance structure, they reduce clarity and increase the risk of misinterpretation.

Addressing such editorial and cosmetic issues alongside substantive changes is an efficient way to improve the overall quality of the document without introducing additional governance complexity.

These updates aim to:

• remove outdated or one-time provisions
• ensure consistent terminology and structure
• improve readability and maintainability
• reduce ambiguity in interpretation

This type of cleanup is common practice in mature organizations and helps ensure that the By-Laws remain a clear and reliable foundation for governance.

By Jens Krumm

Proposed Resolution

The General Assembly resolves to amend §18 of the statutes to clarify and complete the procedure for subsequent voting rounds (runoff elections), ensuring both the achievement of a majority and the practical feasibility of elections.

Background

The current wording of §18 requires candidates to receive more than 50% of the votes cast and foresees subsequent voting rounds if positions remain unfilled.

However, the statutes do not explicitly define:

• how candidates are selected for subsequent voting rounds, and
• how such rounds are to be conducted when multiple positions remain unfilled.

This lack of specification may lead to differing interpretations and inconsistent application in practice.

Proposal

§18 shall be amended to include the following provisions:

1. Limitation of Voting Rounds

The number of voting rounds shall be limited to a maximum of three.

2. Candidate Reduction

In each subsequent voting round, exactly two candidates per remaining open position shall advance, based on the results of the previous round.
If fewer candidates are available, all remaining candidates shall advance.

3. Final Voting Round

If positions remain unfilled after the second voting round, a final voting round shall be conducted under the same candidate limitation.

4. Decision Rule in Final Round

In the final voting round, candidates shall be elected by relative majority (i.e. the highest number of votes), ensuring that all positions can be filled.

5. Objective of the Procedure

The procedure shall be designed in a way that makes achieving the required majority realistically possible within the defined number of voting rounds, while ensuring that a final decision is reached.

Rationale

This amendment will:

• ensure consistent and unambiguous interpretation of the statutes
• provide a clear and deterministic procedure for elections
• preserve the principle of majority support while ensuring decision-making capability
• avoid unresolved elections due to procedural ambiguity
• ensure that elections can be completed within a predictable and practical timeframe

The introduction of the 50% requirement aims to ensure that candidates have meaningful support and are not elected with only a minimal share of the vote.

At the same time, if no candidate achieves this threshold after multiple structured voting rounds with a reduced candidate field, it can be reasonably assumed that a clear absolute majority cannot be reached under the given conditions.

In such cases, allowing a final decision by relative majority provides a pragmatic and fair resolution, while still respecting the original intention of the statutes.

This proposal is made to improve clarity and governance for future elections and is not related to any specific election outcome.

By Adrian Zimmermann

I believe the board needs to be more diverse and also needs fresh faces. That is why I propose limiting the term of office to a maximum of two terms (a maximum of 2 × 3 years). We should have an agile, diverse board, rather than one where some members have been in office for over 10 years. I propose therefore to change Article 18 as follows:

Proposed Resolution

German: Die Amtsdauer des Vereinsvorstands beträgt drei Jahre und richtet sich nach dem Geschäfts- bzw. Kalenderjahr. Zu Vereinsvorstandsmitgliedern können nur Mitglieder des Vereins gewählt werden. Wiederwahl ist zulässig. Der Vorstand besteht aus maximal 9 Mitgliedern. Es können maximal 2 Amtszeiten absolviert werden (2*3 Jahre), nach diesem Ablauf kann man sich nicht mehr zur Wahl stellen.

English: The term of office for the association’s executive committee is three years and follows the financial or calendar year. Only members of the association may be elected to the executive committee. Re-election is permitted. The executive committee consists of a maximum of nine members. Members may serve a maximum of two terms (2 × 3 years); after this period, they may no longer stand for election.

By Matthias Hinner

The TYPO3 Association Board shall publish two types of regular record to its membership:

1. Half-Yearly Board Reports

Twice per year, the Board shall publish a written report consisting of:

• A collective section summarising the work of the Board as a whole during the period — topics addressed, decisions taken, ongoing initiatives, finances at a high level, and planned focus for the following period.
• An individual section for each Board member, structured around their portfolio (see Petition 2 and Article 19 of the Bylaws), describing what was worked on, what was achieved, and what is planned next.

The first report covers the first half of the year (January–June) and shall be published by the end of August. The second covers the second half (July–December) and shall be published by the end of February of the following year.

2. Publication of Board Decision Records

Article 20 of the TYPO3 Association Bylaws already requires a written record (Beschlussprotokoll) for every Board meeting. This petition asks that these records be published in a member-accessible form on a rolling basis, containing at minimum a summarised statement of the decisions taken and the votes cast.

The two requirements are complementary: decision records give members ongoing visibility into what the Board decides; half-yearly reports give context, rationale, and direction.

Further Comment

The Board already does most of this — internally.

The Board Report January–August 2025 (news.typo3.com) is an excellent document. It describes the Board’s internal practice of Outcome Agreements, in which each Board member signs a document defining their deliverables and then reports on accomplishments and challenges in structured Keep / Improve / Stop feedback sessions. The information already exists. This petition asks for a member-facing summary of it twice a year.

Similarly, Article 20 of the Bylaws already requires the Board to keep a written record of every meeting. This petition does not create a new obligation — it asks for publication of records that are already mandatory to produce.

Why half-yearly, not quarterly.

Quarterly reporting is the norm in many member organisations, but for a volunteer Board with mandates now extended to three years (GA 2025, Petition 2), half-yearly is a more appropriate cadence. It ensures that members see their Board at work at least twice in every year, and six times across a three-year mandate — frequent enough to build accountability, rare enough not to become a paperwork burden that distracts from actual work.

Three reasons:

1. Scale of commitment matches scale of role. Board membership is a significant, public-facing role funded by members. Two written updates per year, plus published decision records, is a modest ask proportional to the trust members place in their elected representatives.
2. It makes the Board’s work defensible. Published records turn the Board’s work from an annual retrospective headline into a visible, citable record. Board members can point to concrete decisions and outcomes. Candidates for re-election have a public basis for their claim to continued service. Members can give informed feedback rather than generalities.
3. It fulfils existing Bylaws obligations. Publishing Board decision records is not a new demand. It is a request to make Article 20 of the Bylaws work in practice.

Implementation Suggestion

• First half-yearly report: covers H1 2026 (January–June), published by end of August 2026
• Format: Markdown article on news.typo3.com, with a stable index page linking all reports and all published Board decision records (see Petition 1)
• Length guideline: ~3 pages collective + ~1 page per member for the half-yearly report. Decision records: short, factual, aggregated per meeting — no essays
• Effort per Board member: approximately two hours per report, twice per year. Well under 1% of the Board member’s annual time commitment of roughly 200 hours
• Decision records: published on a rolling basis after each meeting, via the central index

Cost

Zero financial cost. Time investment is approximately four hours per Board member per year for the half-yearly reports. Decision records are already required by the Bylaws; the additional effort is only the publication step.

References

• TYPO3 Association Bylaws (German original), Article 20 on meeting records:
  https://docs.typo3.org/m/typo3/guide-policy/main/en-us/Association/BylawsAndProceedingsGermanOriginal.html 
• TYPO3 Association Board Report January–August 2025 (describes internal Outcome Agreements practice):
  https://news.typo3.com/article/typo3-association-board-report-january-august-2025 
• GA 2025 Protocol, Petition 2 (extension of Board mandates to three years — context for why half-yearly, not annually, is the appropriate cadence)

By Matthias Hinner

Proposal

The TYPO3 Association shall set the size of its Board at eight members for future elections.

This size lies within the range already permitted by the Bylaws: Article 17 sets a minimum of six Board members; Article 18 sets a maximum of nine. This petition therefore does not require a Bylaws amendment — it asks the Association to commit to eight as the target size within the existing range.

In addition, in line with Article 19 of the Bylaws, which requires the Board to issue a Rules of Procedure (Geschaeftsordnung) specifying the division of tasks, the Board shall publish its portfolio assignments so that members know which Board member is responsible for which area of work.

This petition does not affect the 2026 election. Results of the 2026 vote remain as published. The petition applies to future election cycles.

Rationale

Eight is proven. Six is fragile.

For most of its recent history, the TYPO3 Association Board has operated with eight members. That configuration has worked: it has enough capacity for a growing set of responsibilities, enough redundancy to absorb absences and leadership transitions, and enough diversity of perspective to represent an international community.

At the General Assembly 2025, Petition 2 extended Board mandates from two to three years. The protocol of that petition also records the Board's intent to reduce to six members over time, so that two members are elected per year. The extension of mandates was actively voted on. The reduction in size was a consequence drawn by the Board, not an independent member decision. This petition asks the General Assembly 2026 to take that decision directly — and to choose eight.

Three reasons:

1. Quorum fragility at six.

Article 21 of the Bylaws sets the Board's quorum at four members. With a Board of eight, the quorum is half the Board and there is meaningful redundancy. With a Board of six, the quorum is two thirds of the Board, and any two simultaneous absences — whether from illness, travel, personal circumstances, or a disagreement leading to a temporary withdrawal — leave the Board unable to conduct business.

The Board Report January–August 2025 itself describes a Board member returning from long sick leave only in September 2025. That kind of situation is not hypothetical. A Board of eight handles it; a Board of six is one more absence away from paralysis.

2. Compensation for reduced annual rotation.

Three-year mandates reduce annual turnover. With only two seats up per year instead of three or four, the rate of fresh perspectives entering the Board is roughly halved. Maintaining a Board of eight compensates for this by preserving the structural diversity that shorter, more frequent elections used to provide naturally.

3. Capacity matches responsibility.

The TYPO3 Association represents a community across multiple countries, languages, and time zones. The Board's responsibilities — governance reform, product strategy, engagement with EU regulation including the Cyber Resilience Act, brand protection, and education — are growing, not shrinking. Reducing from eight to six members removes roughly 25% of total Board capacity at a moment when more capacity, not less, is needed.

Portfolios make the Board accountable — and are already required.

Article 19 of the Bylaws requires the Board to issue a Rules of Procedure (Geschaeftsordnung) that regulates its tasks and the division of tasks among its members. This petition therefore asks for the publication of something the Bylaws already require the Board to have in place internally: a clear mapping of which Board member is responsible for which area of work. Publishing this mapping turns the larger Board from a group of eight into a cabinet of eight portfolio-holders, each with visible responsibility.

Implementation Suggestion

• Effective: From the Board election cycle following GA 2026 onwards (2027 and beyond)
• The 2026 election result is not affected. In the 2026 cycle, three seats were up for election and three candidates were elected. This petition does not revisit that.
• Future elections: The number of seats up for election in a given year shall match the number of expiring mandates within a target Board size of eight
• Portfolio publication: Within three months of acceptance, the Board publishes its current portfolio assignments in a member-accessible form

Cost

No additional cost. Board members are volunteers; setting the Board at eight instead of six does not change the budget structure. The portfolio publication uses information the Board already maintains internally.

References

TYPO3 Association Bylaws (German original):

• Article 17 — Minimum Board size of six members
• Article 18 — Maximum Board size of nine members; up to three positions elected annually
• Article 19 — Board shall issue a Rules of Procedure regulating its tasks and their division
• Article 20 — Board meeting records
• Article 21 — Board quorum of four members

Link: https://docs.typo3.org/m/typo3/guide-policy/main/en-us/Association/BylawsAndProceedingsGermanOriginal.html 

Further references:

• GA 2025 Protocol, Petition 2 (mandate extension to three years; Board's stated intent to reduce to six)
• Board Report January–August 2025: https://news.typo3.com/article/typo3-association-board-report-january-august-2025 

By Matthias Hinner

The TYPO3 Association shall ensure that its official records — General Assembly protocols, Board decision records, petitions, financial statements, and election results — are published, findable, and permanently available.

Specifically:

1. General Assembly protocols shall be published no later than six weeks after the General Assembly to which they refer.
2. Board decision records (Beschlussprotokolle), which Article 20 of the Association’s Bylaws already requires for every Board meeting, shall be published in a member-accessible form. Records shall contain, at minimum, a summarised statement of the decisions taken and the votes cast.
3. All Association records from 2012 onwards shall be made available through a central, linked index on typo3.org/association/. Records from past years that were lost during previous site migrations shall be restored from available archives, including the Internet Archive where necessary.
4. All records shall be accessible via predictable, permanent URLs that remain valid across future website changes.

Further Comment

The records already exist — or did.

Board decision records are not a new requirement. Article 20 of the TYPO3 Association Bylaws already mandates that a written record be kept of every Board meeting, including the decisions taken. This petition does not ask the Association to do anything new; it asks to make existing records accessible to the members on whose behalf the Board decides.

For General Assembly protocols, the situation is similar. Older protocols used to be published openly. They were lost during a migration to a newer system and have not been systematically restored. This petition asks for restoration where possible and a clear publication standard going forward.

The current situation is unacceptable.

For the General Assembly 2025, the protocol was not available on the Association’s website several months after the meeting. It was published only after a member specifically asked about it, roughly five months after the GA itself. This is not appropriate for the highest governing body of an Association with over a thousand members.

Board decisions between General Assemblies are, in practice, not published at all in any form accessible to members. Members elect the Board and fund its work, but they cannot see what their Board decides from one GA to the next.

Three reasons this matters:

1. Transparency. The Bylaws define the General Assembly as the highest governing body of the Association and the Board as its executive. Both exercise power on behalf of the members. The exercise of that power must be documented and visible. Transparency is not a bonus feature; it is a structural prerequisite for a member-driven organisation.
2. Institutional memory. New Board members, BCC members, candidates, and active community members need access to past decisions to understand precedent, build on prior work, and avoid relitigating settled questions. Records that are missing, delayed, or scattered across different URLs erode this collective memory.
3. Accountability. Citing a past decision — by the Board, by a past General Assembly, by the BCC — is meaningless if the underlying record is unreachable or was never published in the first place. Stable, findable records are a precondition for meaningful governance discussions.

Implementation Suggestion

Within the authority of the Board and in coordination with the TYPO3 Server Team:

• Within 4 weeks of acceptance: publication standard for Board decision records defined and announced
• Within 8 weeks: central index of all Association records published on typo3.org
• Within 3 months: GA protocols from 2012 onwards restored and linked where available
• Ongoing: GA protocols published within 6 weeks after each General Assembly; Board decision records published on a rolling basis after each meeting

Cost

Negligible. This is a documentation, URL-management, and publication-discipline task. The records that need to be published already exist. The records that need to be restored exist in archives. No development budget is required.

References

• TYPO3 Association Bylaws (German original), particularly Article 20 on meeting records:
  https://docs.typo3.org/m/typo3/guide-policy/main/en-us/Association/BylawsAndProceedingsGermanOriginal.html
• Current state: Multiple GA protocol PDFs from past years return HTTP 404 on their original published paths; the GA 2025 protocol was published only after member inquiry, roughly 5 months after the meeting.

What you need to do:

Choose a fellow TYPO3 Association member who will be present at the GA (either in person or online) and who agrees to act as your proxy.
Send a written delegation statement to the Association office before the GA. This can be done by email.
The delegation statement should include:

• Your full name and membership number
• The full name of the member you are delegating your vote to
• A clear statement that you authorise this person to cast your vote on your behalf at the General Assembly 2026
• The date and your signature (a scanned signature or a declaration in the email body is generally accepted)

Contact for submission:

Please send your delegation to the Association office at info@typo3.org .We recommend submitting it at least 48 hours before the GA to ensure everything is properly registered.

Please note: The statutes limit the number of proxy votes one member may hold, so please coordinate with your chosen proxy in advance to make sure they are able to accept.