First, many thanks to all who have sent kind messages after my
resignation, here, on the blog & elsewhere. They are much appreciated.
On the board issues, I agree with Tango, especially as the Compass
review will be out shortly, which (sneak preview) has things to say
about the composition of the board, which will probably influence the
next election. Saad of course is "semi-elected" as he is the runner-up
in the last election with the highest votes who still wants to be on the
board.
John/Johnbod
On 05/02/2013 12:00, wikimediauk-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Send Wikimediauk-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimediauk-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimediauk-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimediauk-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: John Byrne stands down as Treasurer and Trustee of
> Wikimedia UK (Thomas Dalton)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:09:54 +0000
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>rg>, HJ
> Mitchell <hjmitchell(a)ymail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] John Byrne stands down as Treasurer and
> Trustee of Wikimedia UK
> Message-ID:
> <CALTQcccg9wKPW2WMF+wswCFw32Y9=VKmYSDv_UxpYz6ernHzPA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Feb 4, 2013 5:14 PM, "HJ Mitchell" <hjmitchell(a)ymail.com> wrote:
>> Thinking constitutionally for a moment, this leaves us with a relatively
> small board, no treasurer, and quite a high proportion of co-opted trustees
> (a ratio which will increase if a replacement for John is co-opted).
> Obviously the AGM is only four months away, which will soon be upon us, and
> it might not be a situation that can be helped, but it doesn't seem to me
> (as a lay member) to be desirable.
>
> If the two vacant seats are filled by co-option, that still leaves a
> majority of the board elected, so I don't think the democratic legitimacy
> of the board is too badly hurt. If we weren't so close to the agm, there
> might be an argument for an egm rather than use co-option, but I think we
> can wait a little to have our say.
>