Talk:Meetings/2009 AGM/Notice/Original

I noticed a couple of issues with this notice during the last board meeting, namely:

1. What happens if resolution 3 (or resolution 2) is rejected? There should be a fall-back option.
2. There was talk of having a second level of membership, "Friends"; see Membership/Rules. Do we want to consider this here? If we do have this level, then we need to set rates: should this be done here, or discussed at the AGM and potentially set by a board resolution?

Also, Meetings/2009 AGM/Resolutions says about the chapters agreement "The Directors may not, except with approval of the Membership by Special Resolution, terminate or amend this Chapter Agreement.". I would expect that there will be times when the WMF wants to update/modify the agreement; do these need really need to go through a Special Resolution? I notice that "the directors have received one resolution from a member"; considering all members are currently directors, this confuses me.

Finally, there seems to be some debate still about whether we're going for 25 or 26 April: have we officially decided on one of these dates yet?

Apologies for not raising these points sooner. Mike Peel 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising these points. Point 1 I've already commented on here - Talk:Meetings/2009_AGM/Resolutions - please let me know if you agree.

Point 2 - you're right to raise and it should be decided on. I think we should have a way to involve people who want to keep their real name secret or for some other reason don't want to sign up to membership. It doesn't need to be particular formal or have AGM approval and hence I'm not sure we need to do it now - I suggest we leave for the next Board to consider.

The resolution entrenching the chapters agreement was suggested by Tango here. I've assumed he will be approved as a member by the time this notice goes out! We can't stop a member proposing a resolution, but the Board can recommend it is voted down - as, I may suggest next week when this is discussed.

We confirmed it would be Sunday - see http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2009-03-10/IRC#.23wikimedia-uk-board ~21:17 155.202.254.82 18:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC) (AndrewRT)

My intention with the resolution about the chapter agreement was that the membership's approval would be required for any modifications, whether proposed by the WMUK board or the WMF. You are, of course, welcome to propose an amendment and we can debate it, either here or at the AGM. Personally, I don't think the WMF and WMUK board should be able to overrule the WMUK membership on something as important as the chapter agreement. --Tango 17:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The concern I have with the resolution as currently drafted is it means that if we need to make a minor technical change to the wording of the agreement (say to change the terms under which we can use trademarks) the change would have to be ratified in a 75% vote either at a AGM/EGM or a 75% of members putting their name to a written resolution. That might be a bit too onerous for a minor change. If it was worded differently so that non-fundamental changes were allowed, I might be able to support it. AndrewRT 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But then who defines what counts as fundamental? We will be holding AGM's every year (as the name suggests!), so such ratifications wouldn't have to wait long. We can probably do online written resolutions using this website pretty easily too (although I realised since I last suggested that that it would require members to either register with real names on this site or tell WMUK their usernames, which I believe we had wanted to avoid). --Tango 14:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Will you be coming to the Board meeting tomorrow? It wou;ld be great if you could and if you could talk about this resolution, so we can understand better how it would work. Thanks. AndrewRT 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I should be there. I'm not sure what's to understand, though... I thought it was pretty clear what it did, the question is whether we want to do that or not (and it's a legitimate question that is worth further discussion). --Tango 12:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)