Just to let you know I've added these points into the explanatory notes
of the M&A pages on meta - just to keep track of the discussions.

A couple of points:

Tom Holden said:

> 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.

We should be able to qualify for exemption should we want to (details
in the comments http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/MoA#Introduction)

> 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.

> 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.

I take your point, but this clause would only permit using talk pages - it wouldn't require it. The alternative would be 
to make providing an email address a condition of membership.

> 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.

Thinking this through, we've got 41 interested people signed up at the moment, so by the AGM would have
40-70 i guess. Would we be happy to have a meeting that consisted of the five directors plus two others?

> L: I’d support a range of something like 3 to 10 or 1/10th, whichever is highest.

There are at least 1500 wikipedians in the UK (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_the_United_Kingdom) - say 33% of
 them joined up would you really want 
50 directors?

> M: I think requiring all directors to resign each year would be sensible, particularly if we’re going for a board vote style system.

> 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.

> 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.

I agree - I dont see the advantage of this. A Scotland Committee, for instance, could probably be appointed without needing
director powers.

Tom