2008/10/5 Tom Holden thomas.holden@gmail.com:
A: I'd like to oppose including "limited" in the strongest possible terms. For one thing we'll be a CIO within 6 months in all probability, for another "limited" sends entirely the wrong impression.
I don't think the impression is important, since we would be trading under Wikimedia UK (with no Ltd.), but the CIO thing is a good point - we may need to change the name to remove the Ltd. when we convert.
C: We need the multiple objectives used by WM1.0 as they are necessary to ensure the charity is free to do all it needs to do. If you like the WM mission statement there's no reason we can't add it to the list.
They don't necessarily need to be the exact same objectives, but I they do need to be at least as broad.
F: I also absolutely oppose notification on talk pages counting as legal notification. E-mail, sure, but talk-page notification is unreliable and is entirely perverse when e-mail addresses are available.
It would be the member's choice. If they prefer to use their talk page, why not let them?
J: I still think 10 is too high for the early meetings. In the long run it'll be the 1/10th criteria that matters, but in the early days we're in danger of wasting everyone's time as there's a real danger less than 10 will turn up.
We managed far more than that at the last London meetup and that was just an informal get-together.
L: I'd support a range of something like 3 to 10 or 1/10th, whichever is highest.
3 means not even the entire board need to be there, that's a very bad plan. Remember, people can be present by proxy if they want.
M: I think requiring all directors to resign each year would be sensible, particularly if we're going for a board vote style system.
Continuity of governance is very important, if the entire board changes at once the new board won't know what's going on and won't have access to all the contacts the previous board have built up, etc. The membership can remove board members in addition to the usual retirement if necessary.
N: I am happy to allow cooption to replace directors, but only on the condition that it requires a unanimous vote of the board. That way we only need one board member to care about the community's opinion to stop people who are unpopular with the community being elected. Failing that I think we'd survive with no cooption powers whatsoever.
If there are no co-option powers and enough board members resign, die or become illegible to bring the board to less than 3 members the board wouldn't be able to do anything except call a general meeting, and that takes time (minimum of 14 clear days for the notification, probably more in order to book a venue). During that time the charity would grind to a halt, decisions that have already been made could be carried out, but that's it.
Requiring unanimity could work, but I don't see the need - the membership have the power to undo the appointment if they so desire.
Q: I still oppose the extended delegation suggestion. I'm not at all sure what we could do with it that we couldn't without.
The board could assign a group of members a budget and let them spend it without having the run every transaction by the board (or a committee of at least 2 board members). I think it would be good to have members involved as much as possible and this is one way of doing that. As long as we make sure it's done correctly so that it's legal I don't really see a downside.