Talk:Governance Review/Implementation
Co-option
I'm uncomfortable with the target of 'Complete co-options by July 2013 Board meeting'. For one thing, my understanding is that we will be staggering the co-options to these positions over the next 2 years, to ensure that we don't end up with the terms of all co-opted trustees ending at the same time. For another, the timescale of co-opting trustees in July seems too short, considering that we won't know what skills the board is lacking until after the elections in June, and identifying those skills gaps, finding interested individuals with those skills and getting a board decision to appoint them in just one month doesn't seem feasible to me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, good point, I've amended it. There's no point rushing ourselves. I can certainly see scenarios in which I would think the Board should co-opt people in June or July 2013, but I agree we ought to look at the election results and assess. We might find that people who have already expressed interest by that stage would be great. The Land (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Pats on back
Well done everyone who has played their part in getting us so far. This has been an immense effort but means that we are now offering high quality governance. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Term limits
"Terms of office 2 years, 3-year maximum" - I think that one's gotten a bit mangled, I'm sure the original recommendation was 2 years per term, 3 term maximum - the latter part of which wasn't implemented. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)