Talk:2015 Annual General Meeting: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→Involving the volunteers: new section) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Thanks [[User:EdSaperia|Ed]]. Not sure if you are already talking to staff about this, but I'll follow up. Would you be able to drop me an email with some details of what you have in mind? Sounds interesting. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:31, 24 March 2015 (GMT) | :Thanks [[User:EdSaperia|Ed]]. Not sure if you are already talking to staff about this, but I'll follow up. Would you be able to drop me an email with some details of what you have in mind? Sounds interesting. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:31, 24 March 2015 (GMT) | ||
::I believe Daria and some of the board have formed a working group to look at options. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 21:07, 24 March 2015 (GMT) | ::I believe Daria and some of the board have formed a working group to look at options. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 21:07, 24 March 2015 (GMT) | ||
== Involving the volunteers == | |||
At present, I note the agenda contains 8 out of 11 items where the audience will be listening, rather than participating. I can understand the desire to complete the AGM as efficiently as possible, but I still maintain that an organisation which is re-focussing on volunteers ought to be looking to balance the time they spend talking at the volunteers with the time they will devote to listening to them. Only items 6, 8 and 9 seem to involve participation by volunteers (and two of those have a narrow focus and pre-defined structure) | |||
Here's an obvious example: item 2 is "Approval of 2014 AGM minutes (Secretary)" - which should take around 30 seconds if everybody has read them - but there's no item "Matters arising from the minutes (''not otherwise scheduled for debate in the meeting'')", which I know to be a normal part of all other meetings I've attended. Other organisations are able to allocate time to issues raised at the previous AGM/meeting, so is it the intention to lump those in with item 9, which looks to be the only item where volunteers will contribute on issues of their own choosing? I know that we want to fill the time between voting and announcing the results, but having multiple discussions all in one item often leads to a lack of time to discuss some of those issues, resulting in disappointment for some attendees. | |||
There's still time to re-distribute items involving volunteer participation within the draft agenda, and I hope some thought will go into other possibilities. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 20:45, 19 June 2015 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 20:45, 19 June 2015
I can host this if you want. Let me know. EdSaperia (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2015 (GMT)
- Thanks Ed. Not sure if you are already talking to staff about this, but I'll follow up. Would you be able to drop me an email with some details of what you have in mind? Sounds interesting. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2015 (GMT)
- I believe Daria and some of the board have formed a working group to look at options. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2015 (GMT)
Involving the volunteers
At present, I note the agenda contains 8 out of 11 items where the audience will be listening, rather than participating. I can understand the desire to complete the AGM as efficiently as possible, but I still maintain that an organisation which is re-focussing on volunteers ought to be looking to balance the time they spend talking at the volunteers with the time they will devote to listening to them. Only items 6, 8 and 9 seem to involve participation by volunteers (and two of those have a narrow focus and pre-defined structure)
Here's an obvious example: item 2 is "Approval of 2014 AGM minutes (Secretary)" - which should take around 30 seconds if everybody has read them - but there's no item "Matters arising from the minutes (not otherwise scheduled for debate in the meeting)", which I know to be a normal part of all other meetings I've attended. Other organisations are able to allocate time to issues raised at the previous AGM/meeting, so is it the intention to lump those in with item 9, which looks to be the only item where volunteers will contribute on issues of their own choosing? I know that we want to fill the time between voting and announcing the results, but having multiple discussions all in one item often leads to a lack of time to discuss some of those issues, resulting in disappointment for some attendees.
There's still time to re-distribute items involving volunteer participation within the draft agenda, and I hope some thought will go into other possibilities. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2015 (BST)