I would like to draw attention to a discussion on the UK wiki: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:EGM_2013/Resolutions#How_the_vote_works Mike Peel has pointed out some pretty serious issues with the way the resolutions we're supposed to be voting on at the weekend are drafted and how they interact with each other. The main problem comes from the third resolution, which introduces Single Transferable Vote. In addition to doing that, it has a seemly minor change from specifying the maximum number of trustees directly to saying the maximum is in the articles. The problem is, the articles say there is no maximum. The two other resolutions amend the articles, the first introduces an overall maximum of 11 trustees and the second specifies 7 elected trustees and 3 co-opted trustees (there is intentionally one vacancy to make transistions easier). If neither of those resolutions passes, but the STV one does, that leaves us with no maximum and everything falls to pieces. Mike says everyone getting over 50% of the vote will be elected, regardless of number, which isn't correct - the 50% thing doesn't exist under the STV approach (it wouldn't make sense). A STV without a well defined number of people being elected is simply impossible (you can't calculate the quota) so we just can't have an election. (We could still appoint people by some other ordinary resolution at the AGM, but the election rules would be completely meaningless.) If the first resolution is passed, but not the second, then we would end up electing 11 trustees, which isn't what anyone intended. If both pass, it works fine, but I know some people are keen on STV but not on the rest (eg. me!) and there isn't any way the meeting can introduce STV and keep the size and composition of the board the same. It is too late to amend any of the motions at this point, and I don't think it makes sense to go ahead with a meeting where it isn't possible for the meeting to reach certain results that it clearly should be able to (we were originally going to have an EGM for just the STV vote - there is no reason members should be forced to make the other changes in order to get STV). Therefore I propose (as I've proposed before) that we cancel the EGM and use the time to have a proper discussion about what we want to do. We can then have the actual votes at the AGM (there won't be any significant harm from the delay - we'll have to have this year's election under approval voting rather than STV, but that isn't the end of the world). If the board doesn't cancel the EGM, then I will be proposing a motion to adjourn at the start of the meeting. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org