So shall we resume to our discussion to the ten points ChapCom raised? Just so you know, I've left ChapCom hanging, so the sooner we agree on these points, the sooner we get our approval :)

Let me start with the 1st 3 Q's:

1. Most chapters have a minimum of 1 general meeting (exclusive of the AGM).

2. What happens if the members are unhappy about how the board is doing? It is in most chapters common that if x% of the members requires it, the board is forced to call an assembly. For example, if 10% of the members (also a quorum in this case) call for it.

3. Is there a Special Resolution where members can remove a board member the whole Board?

==My response==

1. In the initial bylaws, we had indicated a min. of 3 meetings. As a compromise, I am willing to accept 2 meetings minimum (1 regular meeting + 1 general meeting.)

2 &3. I agree with points 2 and 3. I think that members should have the right to remove the Board if dissatisfied. I'll just give you a rough recap of what happened at Wikimedia Deutschland:

xx% of the members got together and stated that they wanted to have a special assembly, with a vote of no confidence as a topic. They succeeded in getting the required percentage for that (I don't know the percentage exactly, but it probably was around 10% of 500 members). During the assembly however, they did not get enough votes to pass the motion of no confidence - the motion was rejected (I believe with a convincing majority). Note that a minority can call an assembly for issues they deem important, but cannot take major decisions without the majority agreeing.

By the way, there is a slight difference between a motion of no confidence (which then should be interpreted by the board but could technically be ignored) and a motion to excuse the board and hold new elections. The second is with most chapters more common (and is afaik actually the case in Germany too).

Abbas.

From: abbasjnr@hotmail.com
To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:47:21 +0000
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments

Stephen, Oscar,

Oh, sawa. Speaking of students council, that's what happens at strath as well. Thanks for clarifying.

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:37:48 +0300
From: wanjaustev@gmail.com
To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments

We should let the electorate decide who they want to be the chairperson,secretary, vice and so forth unlike when the board members are left to the task.
About having too many volunteers vying for one post and having only one vying for another is quite 'normal'. I believe the many who go for a certain post e.g. treasurer would probably not settle for another post in the board. And again, the board may choose a candidate who is not a representative who the members want at the post.
The board should be a representation of the members voices.
For instance, Our student council at JKUAT, the vice and secretary general were elected unopposed since they did not have opponents whereas the chairmans position had 5 contestants, the finance docket had 3 contestants e.t.c. They were sworn in with no squalms since the rest of the students body had been given a window period to submit nomination papers-which they didnt.I hope am clear.
Cheers
Stephen W. Wanjau
On Jul 13, 2011 8:05 PM, "Limoke Oscar" <oslimoke@gmail.com> wrote:
> Abbas,
> I think someone would vie for a post s/he thinks he can comfortably
> serve.I mean I wouldnt say vie for a secretary if am not
> interestde.Let someone choose a position s/he thinks he is in a
> position to serve.
> Another drawback is that how would the 'creme de le creme' decide
> amongst themselves who should be chair,vice ans staff?wouldn't this
> cause some cold blood and tension among themselves?
>
> On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood <abbasjnr@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Oscar,
>>
>>> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:37:57 +0300
>>> From: oslimoke@gmail.com
>>> To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
>>
>>
>>> About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position
>>> based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth....
>>
>> Erm, I think this type of method has a disadvantage: for instance, 5 people
>> vie for the Chairperson seat and maybe only 1 person vies for the Secretary
>> post; definitely, the Secretary will get elected; since (s)he has no
>> competitor, and maybe out of the 4 that lost the Chair's seat, one of them
>> could have been a better Board member than the secretary who had won. What
>> I'm trying to say is that i think it's better for voters to vote for their
>> best top 5 candidates; and the Board members will later on delegate their
>> respective positions themselves. By doing so, we will get the creme de la
>> creme to be on the Board.
>> Abbas.
>
>
> --
> Limoke Oscar,
> mayenge.blogspot.com
> Freelancer,
> GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikimediaKE mailing list
> WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake

_______________________________________________ WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake

_______________________________________________ WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake