At 23:04 +0000 29/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/11/29 Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com>om>:
At 22:22 +0000 29/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
It is for
such concerns that I have suggested a limit on guarantor
members, say to 75 or 100 people, all reviewed by the board, and open
membership for the "Friends of WMUK 2.0" with no review.
Why should only the first 100 people get to have any say in the
running of the chapter?
They will have a say, at the AGM, or an SGM, only. The Board runs
the Company.
Also, look forwards a decade? Many of the "first 100" will have left
by then, and it will be important to maintain a stable body.
The AGM is a meeting of members of the company, ie. guarantor members.
"Friends" don't get a vote at the AGM.
Yes, nice to agree.
The Governance of WMUK is far from settled AFAIK. A very large group
(hundreds or thousands) cannot have a single voice with some
hierarchical or other structures.
Here is the original posting, for some context. Not everbody uses
Gmail to read posts...
:-)
*****
---------
To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
From: Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members
At 00:06 +0000 29/11/08, Andrew Turvey wrote:
[...]
When we were drafting the constitution, we adopted the standard
Articles for charities, which give the Board fairly broad powers to
refuse (or remove) membership if they consider this in the best
interests of the charity. This is subject to a due process that the
Board must follow and a right of appeal to the AGM, which the Board
decided to beef up from the standard rules.[...]
It is for such concerns that I have suggested a limit on guarantor
members, say to 75 or 100 people, all reviewed by the board, and open
membership for the "Friends of WMUK 2.0" with no review.
Gordon
---------
*****
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///