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.
The Governance is pretty much determined by the Companies Act 2006, the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association. There are members who elect a board at the AGM and the board runs the charity. The members have certain additional powers which can be exercised in writing, at AGMs or at EGMs. "Member" is this context means "guarantor member".
The part that isn't settled yet is membership fees and what forms of membership we'll have (if any) in addition to membership of the company proper, but whatever is decided, they won't get a vote at AGMs.
Having 100s or over 1000s of members shouldn't be a problem - most will probably vote by proxy at the AGM. There are public companies with 10s or even 100s of thousands of shareholders that manage just fine, the vast majority just fill out a proxy statement that is sent to them in the post and never go near the actual meeting.
At 13:21 +0000 30/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
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.
The Governance is pretty much determined by the Companies Act 2006, the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association. There are members who elect a board at the AGM and the board runs the charity. The members have certain additional powers which can be exercised in writing, at AGMs or at EGMs. "Member" is this context means "guarantor member".
The part that isn't settled yet is membership fees and what forms of membership we'll have (if any) in addition to membership of the company proper, but whatever is decided, they won't get a vote at AGMs.
Having 100s or over 1000s of members shouldn't be a problem - most will probably vote by proxy at the AGM. There are public companies with 10s or even 100s of thousands of shareholders that manage just fine, the vast majority just fill out a proxy statement that is sent to them in the post and never go near the actual meeting.
Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean?
Gordo
On Nov 30, 9:36 pm, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean?
I don't understand - why would it be a problem having over 1,000 members? I think it would be fantastic, personally,
Andrew
At 14:51 -0800 30/11/08, AndrewRT wrote:
On Nov 30, 9:36 pm, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean?
I don't understand - why would it be a problem having over 1,000 members? I think it would be fantastic, personally,
Andrew
I am member of several charities, and a Trustee of one (which has no members other than the Trustees).
I have sat in AGMs and wondered what it would be like if people rocked the boat, which is so easy to do....
Does every member have a voice?
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org