Just catching up on my emails and wanted to mention a few things:
1. Election committee/Returning Officer/teller
Andrew Whitworth - didn't realise you were from ChapCom. In that case, can I propose Andrew is asked to be the Returning Officer/teller/election committee, with responsibility for:
- sending out voting invitations (by email?)
- receiving back votes
- counting them
- publishing the results
Do we need more than one person to count 20 odd votes?
2. First Board meeting
Might be taken as read, but can I suggest the person who tops the poll has the responsibility of calling and chairing the first meeting.
3.50% Rule
Can someone clarify: does this mean everyone elected must get more "Yes"es tha "No"s? If so, presumably abstentions wouldn't count either way? Or does it mean Yes must be more than No + Abstentions. If the former, I think the rule should be kept as it prevents the election of a controversial polarising figures who might have many supporters but also many critics. If the latter, it could end up being quite an obstacle.
4. Initial/interim board
Of course, the Board announced on 27th September won't be directors of anything because no company will exist at that stage; however, soon after (hopefully round about 25 October) these same people will become directors of the new company and will remain so until the AGM three months later - so, yes, they will have real authority. I would say that all decisions of the chapter at this time will have to be made - formally at least - by the Board. However, the community can still hold them to account at follows:
- I would expect the Board to advertise the place, time and agenda of their meetings and encourage non-Board members to contribute to decisions (retaining, of course, the right to go "In Camera" if they need to discuss private matters)
- In some matters (e.g. how much the membership fee is) I would hope the Board would encourage the community to reach a decision and then implement it.
- I would expect the Board to publish minutes (redacted if necessary) of their decisions and the reasons behind them and to give regular progress reports to the community
Admittedly the community couldn't force any of these; however:
- Standard Board M&As would give the majority of Directors the power to dismiss a director if need be (although this may be modified in the specific Articles - which I haven't yet been through in detail)
- Directors can in some circumstances be voted out by members at the AGM (even those not standing for re-election)
- If directors refuse to call an AGM, a given % of members can normally force one to be held (the details are set out in the M&AoA)
- If all else fails, Wikimedia Foundation can revoke the license which essentially collapses the organisation (even if it doesn't legally)
By the way, I think it could be described as an "interim" board because it will only last three months and wont be doing much of substance.
Andrew Turvey