Talk:EGM 2013
I'm not sure this EGM is a good idea. The deadline for giving notice of resolutions will be in about a month. That isn't long enough for us to properly discuss the issues and make sure resolutions are proposed to cover all the options the meeting may wish to adopt. I suggest this EGM be made an informal workshop and we can actually vote on things at the AGM. If that means some things have to wait a year to take effect, it isn't a big problem - there is no real urgency with any of this (the sooner the better, certainly, but there are no deadlines). It is better that we take a while and make the right decisions, rather than rushing to get things done in time for the AGM. (The planned vote on changing the voting system could be taken at an EGM, since it doesn't particularly interact with anything else, but it would be better to take a holistic approach to the changes in the election system/board composition.) --Tango (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't recommend waiting until Summer 2014 to introduce co-opted trustees to the board (assuming that is the wish of the membership). The decision to have co-opted trustees is a binary decision, in that WMUK would have to go through the same process to find one co-optee as it would four. The issues raised by the Governance Review are fresh in everyone's minds and we do have time before the AGM to agree the board's composition. I'll do my best to ensure that alternate suggestions are given full consideration, but I only expect the EGM to decide on the makeup of the board and the system of voting at the AGM. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's no need to wait until Summer 2014. Assuming we want to go with the Compass recommendations, we can pass the relevant resolutions at the 2013 AGM at the same time as filling the current 7 seat board. That will leave two empty seats that the board can fill by co-option over the next year. Then at the 2014 AGM, we elect one board member fewer than we would otherwise, leaving another seat vacant to be filled by co-option, getting us to the 3-6 split recommended. I don't think we would want to move any faster than that anyway - it will take time to find good trustees. If we only elect to 6 board members at the AGM, the board will be a man short for quite a while. --Tango (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- My preference would be not to reduce the number of elected trustees as experience has shown that 6 elected trustees is too small should trustees leave mid-term, so I can't tell what numbers the membership will decide upon. In order to have normal co-optees (rather than those who temporarily replace elected trustees), we need to change our constitution anyway, and it seems to me sensible for those voting at the 2013 AGM to know the numbers that they are voting for, particularly if they are postal voting in advance of the AGM or voting by proxy. I can't see any good reason not to decide those issues at the EGM in time for the AGM voting to be done with complete knowledge of what is being voted on in advance. --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's no need to wait until Summer 2014. Assuming we want to go with the Compass recommendations, we can pass the relevant resolutions at the 2013 AGM at the same time as filling the current 7 seat board. That will leave two empty seats that the board can fill by co-option over the next year. Then at the 2014 AGM, we elect one board member fewer than we would otherwise, leaving another seat vacant to be filled by co-option, getting us to the 3-6 split recommended. I don't think we would want to move any faster than that anyway - it will take time to find good trustees. If we only elect to 6 board members at the AGM, the board will be a man short for quite a while. --Tango (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)