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)

I just used Compass's recommendation of 6 elected seats as an example - it's one of the many things we need to discuss in detail. My proposal doesn't involve any uncertainty at the 2013 AGM - the election there would take place under the current articles and election rules. If the Compass recommendations about board composition are adopted at the 2013 AGM, they would be phased in over the course of a year. At first, there would be 7 elected seats (in accordance with current rules) and 2 new seats that would be filled by co-option. Then, after the 2014 AGM, there would be 6 elected seats and 3 co-opted seats (in accordance with the recommendation). If we decide to do something different from the Compass recommendation, then we would need to work out exactly how the transition would work, but something similar should be possible for most decisions we could make. The good reason for not deciding these things at the EGM is that there isn't time to have a proper discussion about them before the deadline for finalising the resolutions. --Tango (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Then have a number of different proposals that can be voted upon after discussion at the EGM. In terms of in person discussion, we will have more time at an EGM than we would at the AGM. -- KTC (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But we need to have the discussion in order to come up with the different proposals. --Tango (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We certainly need to get on with putting a set of proposals from the board up for discussion by the community, so that they can go in the notice. Then if, which from past experience is not impossible, some proposals are rejected in this EGM, there is time to put revised proposals (or, like an Irish referendum, the same proposals) to the AGM, plus anything where a satisfactory proposal didn't emerge the first time. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

On a purely practical note Tango is right. The chance of getting a quorate EGM to debate constitutional amendments is miniscule. Though we might just get 10% if we make the EGM a thirty minute slot at the meetup the next day. That worked for something important, uncontentious and short such as the changes we had to make in order to get registered charity status. I don't fancy our chances of agreeing a proposal at a workshop on the Saturday and endorsing it at an EGM on the Sunday, not least because some people will want to see the proposals before they decide whether to come to the EGM. Best to use the Saturday and or the wiki to hammer out a proposal and present it to the AGM. WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's currently planned to be the same weekend of GLAM-WIKI, so hopefully there's a few people turning up that would not otherwise be around. But yes, attendance is certainly an issue to seriously consider. KTC (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if it were practical to decide on the proposals on the Saturday and vote on the Sunday (which, I agree, it isn't) it wouldn't be legal. You have to give quite a long notice period to amend the articles. --Tango (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We are very constrained in time, and I made this pragmatic suggestion of piggy-backing on GLAMwiki to the board so that we were not trying to load too much into the AGM. I suggest we work backwards from the outcome we want (a good AGM that establishes a new board that meets as many of the Governance recommendations as possible) and find something equally pragmatic if the specifics do not add up. In the meantime, I suggest the most practical next action this week is to ensure resolutions to be voted on are in a suitable state to announce, so we can give the necessary 21 days notice (or whatever the legally minded say is needed). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It all seems to be coming together. We are close to being able to announce the exact time and venue, the motions on boards size, its constitution and the voting system are being cleared by our lawyers and we hope to be able to publish them well in advance to ensure lots of time for discussion. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The deadline is 22 March, just over 3 weeks away. I don't consider that "lots of time". --Tango (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The substance of the proposals is in the Governance Review. Obviously it will be for members to decide whether to accept or reject them but I am sure those of us closely following the discussion will have given the substantial issues some thought already. It's obviously important that we have well-drafted motions that do what they're meant to do, but 2 weeks should be long enough for people to look at them and comment on them, I would have thought? The Land (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're just blindly following the reviews recommendations? We shouldn't be voting until we have considered all the options. Two weeks isn't long enough for that. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We'll be asking the membership to adopt the review's recommendations, but not doing so at all blindly. The Land (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What's actually going on? I've got this email about the EGM, but no context as to why these changes are wanted/needed. Is there a useful link for those of us who support, but aren't necessarily that involved to get a summary of what's happening? Thanks. Palfrey (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this section of the current Members Newsletter helpful? Add more questions here, but the basic answer is these changes are in response to recommended changes following a review of the Charity's governance, while the proposed changed to the voting system had been informally discussed within the community prior to this for some time :) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)