Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
Hi all, My thruppence: 1p: There are things that can be learnt from how WMF board elections are run, and also elections for other UK charities. A clear process that lets members cast votes online ahead of the AGM (instead of / in addition to proxy votes) would be very good. Being able to participate in the AGM remotely would also be very nice. 2p: It is quite worrying that there were only three candidates for three board seats - that's not a healthy situation to be in, as it encourages complacency (although I'm sure that the candidates this election won't be complacent!), and it removes the choice of direction for the charity from the members (as there is not a pool of candidates with different viewpoints to choose between). It's also a repeat situation for WMUK. I hope that this is the last time that this happens. 3p: In terms of encouraging people to physically attend the AGM, in early years the AGM was held as part of 'Wikiconference UK', which was meant to develop into a mini-Wikimania. That faded away at/after Wikimania 2014, and part of that lives on with the lightning talks, but it might be worth thinking about the wider concept again. Thanks, Mike > On 16 Jul 2017, at 16:41, Rod Ward wrote: > > Hi all, > > As a long term member who didn't want to spend the time or money to travel to > London for the AGM (even with the associated events), I would be in favour of > some technologically enabled access - however unless there is something > controversial I happy to trust the trustees (and staff and other members). > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Wikimediauk-l [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Fæ > Sent: 16 July 2017 19:45 > To: UK Wikimedia mailing list > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM > > Hi Rex, > > Hope you are having a relaxed Sunday. A few in-line responses from one of the > charity's most radical past trustees over a cup of herbal tea > :-) > > On 16 July 2017 at 19:01, Rex X wrote: >> You make many sensible points, Fae, thank you. >> >> Probably the biggest issue for me is whether members are happy with >> resolutions being passed with little more than 5% of the membership >> being present in the room when the voting took place. > ... > > I agree that it is slightly pointless to set an operational target to have > more than 5% to 10% of members "in the room". However I think most members > would agree that seeing an active voting membership at yesterday's AGM of > just 11% is not satisfactory. With 88% of currently paid up members failing > to engage in any way with the AGM, something looks and feels wrong with how > the meeting works; or perhaps with who is being targeted for membership in > the first place. > > I'm fully supportive of increasing membership, I would love to see a target > membership going over 1,000; in fact when Roger was Chair many years ago we > were discussing how to realistically reach a target of 2,000, as membership > was increasing so quickly. However I would want a larger membership to be > meaningful membership. If other stakeholders want to donate a few pounds, > let's call it a donation and give them a badge to wear, but let's not > encourage them to join as members. Having membership targets without an > understanding of the reasons people are joining, gives the false impression > that ramping up membership makes the charity more accountable, transparent or > better governed when it put us in danger of doing the opposite. > > >> Nevertheless, to address the actual point, would you agree that giving >> members the easiest possible opportunity to make their opinions heard >> would be the next best thing to having them physically present? If so, >> then the point about postal votes is interesting, and perhaps >> preferable to appointing proxies in some ways, although proxies a >> least have the opportunity to respond to a debate and to reconsider a >> decision in the light of such debate. What would be most democratic? > > As you recall, during my short time as Chair of the board, we experimented > with live broadcasts from board meetings and included time is the regular > board meetings with live questions from members via instant messaging, rather > than expecting them to be in the room. > It worked, and for the members who joined in it was a lot of fun. It also > ticked all the boxes for demonstrating that the charity was a leading > information technology literate organization, and one with openness at the > heart of its values. > > As well as changing the charity's articles to make postal votes possible, > thereby moving the charity into technology that UK Parliament embraced in > 1918, I would like to see the charity go further and have live questions at > the next AGM for the board, using tools like Google Hangout, or IRC. If > members were able to ask last minute questions remotely, and then vote using > a remote system such as used by th
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
Hi all, As a long term member who didn't want to spend the time or money to travel to London for the AGM (even with the associated events), I would be in favour of some technologically enabled access - however unless there is something controversial I happy to trust the trustees (and staff and other members). Rod -Original Message- From: Wikimediauk-l [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ Sent: 16 July 2017 19:45 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM Hi Rex, Hope you are having a relaxed Sunday. A few in-line responses from one of the charity's most radical past trustees over a cup of herbal tea :-) On 16 July 2017 at 19:01, Rex X wrote: > You make many sensible points, Fae, thank you. > > Probably the biggest issue for me is whether members are happy with > resolutions being passed with little more than 5% of the membership > being present in the room when the voting took place. ... I agree that it is slightly pointless to set an operational target to have more than 5% to 10% of members "in the room". However I think most members would agree that seeing an active voting membership at yesterday's AGM of just 11% is not satisfactory. With 88% of currently paid up members failing to engage in any way with the AGM, something looks and feels wrong with how the meeting works; or perhaps with who is being targeted for membership in the first place. I'm fully supportive of increasing membership, I would love to see a target membership going over 1,000; in fact when Roger was Chair many years ago we were discussing how to realistically reach a target of 2,000, as membership was increasing so quickly. However I would want a larger membership to be meaningful membership. If other stakeholders want to donate a few pounds, let's call it a donation and give them a badge to wear, but let's not encourage them to join as members. Having membership targets without an understanding of the reasons people are joining, gives the false impression that ramping up membership makes the charity more accountable, transparent or better governed when it put us in danger of doing the opposite. > Nevertheless, to address the actual point, would you agree that giving > members the easiest possible opportunity to make their opinions heard > would be the next best thing to having them physically present? If so, > then the point about postal votes is interesting, and perhaps > preferable to appointing proxies in some ways, although proxies a > least have the opportunity to respond to a debate and to reconsider a > decision in the light of such debate. What would be most democratic? As you recall, during my short time as Chair of the board, we experimented with live broadcasts from board meetings and included time is the regular board meetings with live questions from members via instant messaging, rather than expecting them to be in the room. It worked, and for the members who joined in it was a lot of fun. It also ticked all the boxes for demonstrating that the charity was a leading information technology literate organization, and one with openness at the heart of its values. As well as changing the charity's articles to make postal votes possible, thereby moving the charity into technology that UK Parliament embraced in 1918, I would like to see the charity go further and have live questions at the next AGM for the board, using tools like Google Hangout, or IRC. If members were able to ask last minute questions remotely, and then vote using a remote system such as used by the WMF for its secure votes during board elections, we may actually get a lot of interest from members who are several hundred miles away, not just those of us who happen to live within easy distance of London and are prepared to pay for our own train fares out of our pocket money or pensions. Remote engagement will also mean that proxy voting would become almost redundant, as members interested in voting will be able to watch the live discussion about resolutions, perhaps add their own questions, and listen in on the discussions as trustee candidates receive questions from members. Then with all that fresh intelligence, make a far more meaningful vote on the day of the AGM. Nothing about all this is all that difficult, nor is it expensive. So long as all technology is well tested out a few months before we rely on it for real. Perhaps testing can be started later this year by using remote engagement for regular board meetings, something we have done before. Along with a review to ensure the charity's Articles are made fit for the 21st century, these improvements to the charity's engagement with the community and a hike in meaningful governance are achievable and realistic long before the 2018 AGM gets booked in our diaries. Thanks, Fae > -- > Rexx > > >> On 16 July 2017 at 14:33 Fæ wrote: >> >> >> Thanks Lucy, I'm quite happy to wait un
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
On 16/07/17 19:44, Fæ wrote: > Along with a review to ensure the charity's Articles are > made fit for the 21st century, I wonder if the transition to CIO could (should?) also happen? Gordo Wikimedia UK is a charity registered in England and Wales, number 1144513 and a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales, registered no. 6741827. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
The numbers of email addresses on this list are as follows: 207 Non-digested Members of Wikimediauk-l: 66 Digested Members of Wikimediauk-l: So this list could have about half of the total membership of the Charity? Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
Hi Rex, Hope you are having a relaxed Sunday. A few in-line responses from one of the charity's most radical past trustees over a cup of herbal tea :-) On 16 July 2017 at 19:01, Rex X wrote: > You make many sensible points, Fae, thank you. > > Probably the biggest issue for me is whether members are happy with > resolutions > being passed with little more than 5% of the membership being present in the > room when the voting took place. ... I agree that it is slightly pointless to set an operational target to have more than 5% to 10% of members "in the room". However I think most members would agree that seeing an active voting membership at yesterday's AGM of just 11% is not satisfactory. With 88% of currently paid up members failing to engage in any way with the AGM, something looks and feels wrong with how the meeting works; or perhaps with who is being targeted for membership in the first place. I'm fully supportive of increasing membership, I would love to see a target membership going over 1,000; in fact when Roger was Chair many years ago we were discussing how to realistically reach a target of 2,000, as membership was increasing so quickly. However I would want a larger membership to be meaningful membership. If other stakeholders want to donate a few pounds, let's call it a donation and give them a badge to wear, but let's not encourage them to join as members. Having membership targets without an understanding of the reasons people are joining, gives the false impression that ramping up membership makes the charity more accountable, transparent or better governed when it put us in danger of doing the opposite. > Nevertheless, to address the actual point, would you agree that giving members > the easiest possible opportunity to make their opinions heard would be the > next > best thing to having them physically present? If so, then the point about > postal > votes is interesting, and perhaps preferable to appointing proxies in some > ways, > although proxies a least have the opportunity to respond to a debate and to > reconsider a decision in the light of such debate. What would be most > democratic? As you recall, during my short time as Chair of the board, we experimented with live broadcasts from board meetings and included time is the regular board meetings with live questions from members via instant messaging, rather than expecting them to be in the room. It worked, and for the members who joined in it was a lot of fun. It also ticked all the boxes for demonstrating that the charity was a leading information technology literate organization, and one with openness at the heart of its values. As well as changing the charity's articles to make postal votes possible, thereby moving the charity into technology that UK Parliament embraced in 1918, I would like to see the charity go further and have live questions at the next AGM for the board, using tools like Google Hangout, or IRC. If members were able to ask last minute questions remotely, and then vote using a remote system such as used by the WMF for its secure votes during board elections, we may actually get a lot of interest from members who are several hundred miles away, not just those of us who happen to live within easy distance of London and are prepared to pay for our own train fares out of our pocket money or pensions. Remote engagement will also mean that proxy voting would become almost redundant, as members interested in voting will be able to watch the live discussion about resolutions, perhaps add their own questions, and listen in on the discussions as trustee candidates receive questions from members. Then with all that fresh intelligence, make a far more meaningful vote on the day of the AGM. Nothing about all this is all that difficult, nor is it expensive. So long as all technology is well tested out a few months before we rely on it for real. Perhaps testing can be started later this year by using remote engagement for regular board meetings, something we have done before. Along with a review to ensure the charity's Articles are made fit for the 21st century, these improvements to the charity's engagement with the community and a hike in meaningful governance are achievable and realistic long before the 2018 AGM gets booked in our diaries. Thanks, Fae > -- > Rexx > > >> On 16 July 2017 at 14:33 Fæ wrote: >> >> >> Thanks Lucy, I'm quite happy to wait until the members can read the >> minutes. There's no expectation that replies to questions about >> governance have to happen quickly, or need to be answered by the CEO >> rather than our unpaid trustees, especially at the weekend. >> >> The question of proxy votes is interesting, and I think the trustees >> would be wise to look at whether the Articles are fit for purpose with >> dramatically increasing membership. The Articles emphasise that a >> quorum must be "present" and literally proxy voting means that the 30 >> votes given at the AGM "by proxy", stil
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
Hi all,As we are one of these hyper-modern charities which is part of a movement which has literally re-written the fundamentals of information management on a global scale, I do not think it would be immodest of us to explore approaches to digital democracy in keeping with our game-changing reputation?Of course, i wouldn't expect this to happen overnight, but I believe it is worth thinking about.all the bestFabianaka leuthaOn 16 July 2017 at 19:01 Rex X wrote:You make many sensible points, Fae, thank you.Probably the biggest issue for me is whether members are happy with resolutionsbeing passed with little more than 5% of the membership being present in theroom when the voting took place.Of course, the other side of that coin is that the business of an AGM is oftendeathly boring and the voting eminently predictable. When you consider that thedecisions taken were to elect three candidates for three places and to agreeauditors and no change to membership fees, it's probably going to be difficultto attract much more than a small fraction of membership to a single location inorder to conduct that sort of business, however necessary it be.In the event, I think the staff did a good job of drawing up a broader programmethat make journeys worthwhile for those who undertook them, but as membershipincreases (and I hope it will), I still can't see us ending up with any morethan about 1 in 20 of our membership physically present.Nevertheless, to address the actual point, would you agree that giving membersthe easiest possible opportunity to make their opinions heard would be the nextbest thing to having them physically present? If so, then the point about postalvotes is interesting, and perhaps preferable to appointing proxies in some ways,although proxies a least have the opportunity to respond to a debate and toreconsider a decision in the light of such debate. What would be mostdemocratic?--RexxOn 16 July 2017 at 14:33 Fæ wrote:Thanks Lucy, I'm quite happy to wait until the members can read theminutes. There's no expectation that replies to questions aboutgovernance have to happen quickly, or need to be answered by the CEOrather than our unpaid trustees, especially at the weekend.The question of proxy votes is interesting, and I think the trusteeswould be wise to look at whether the Articles are fit for purpose withdramatically increasing membership. The Articles emphasise that aquorum must be "present" and literally proxy voting means that the 30votes given at the AGM "by proxy", still requires a person physicallyat the meeting to vote who has been nominated by the person notpresent. The articles do not give scope for 'postal votes' without aformal physical proxy, even if special rules are published on a webpage. I presume that the 30 votes by proxy actually did have peoplecasting those votes who were at the AGM, as I was not allowed to votedespite being a member, I did not experience the current procedure.In terms of governance for future general meetings and how resolutionsget passed, this would be a good time for the charity to reviewwhether the members would be happy with resolutions being passed by"ten members" on behalf of the total membership of 498. The AGMyesterday passed resolutions with just 5% of members physicallypresent, and the board might reflect on how happy they are that thediscussions and questions raised at the AGM were heard by so small aproportion of the members of the charity.As an illustrative fantasy scenario that I think is legally possiblewithin the Articles as they are currently published, trustees could beelected, or resolutions passed, by emailing out a meeting notice, andafter the notice period one could find ten like-minded members to meetin a pub, which can count trustees and staff, and then vote throughmajor changes to the charity even though just 2% of the membershiptook part.It's interesting stuff for anyone with a passion for charitygovernance. Though most will find these areas an incredibly unlikelyrisk, I think that there are lessons to be learned from othercharities to ensure long term stability. Similarly lessons about goodgovernance could and should probably be learned in the UK based on thevery recent experience of Wikimedia France, where the views of a fewunpaid volunteers on the board, in highly significant ways, appear tofail to represent the majority of members; were those members everasked and positively encouraged to provide their views.Thanks,FaeOn 16 July 2017 at 12:50, Lucy Crompton-Reid wrote:Nicola (as teller) read out the total number all of the valid votes, whichwere 57 (30 of them proxy votes submitted before the meeting). Cheers, LucyOn 16 July 2017 at 11:13, Fæ wrote:>A small request for the pending minutes of the AGM; during the meetingthere was a count of hands of voting members, presumably to complywith the Articles of Association with regard to the legally requiredquorum. The final count was not read out, so I will be interested toread that speci
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
You make many sensible points, Fae, thank you. Probably the biggest issue for me is whether members are happy with resolutions being passed with little more than 5% of the membership being present in the room when the voting took place. Of course, the other side of that coin is that the business of an AGM is often deathly boring and the voting eminently predictable. When you consider that the decisions taken were to elect three candidates for three places and to agree auditors and no change to membership fees, it's probably going to be difficult to attract much more than a small fraction of membership to a single location in order to conduct that sort of business, however necessary it be. In the event, I think the staff did a good job of drawing up a broader programme that make journeys worthwhile for those who undertook them, but as membership increases (and I hope it will), I still can't see us ending up with any more than about 1 in 20 of our membership physically present. Nevertheless, to address the actual point, would you agree that giving members the easiest possible opportunity to make their opinions heard would be the next best thing to having them physically present? If so, then the point about postal votes is interesting, and perhaps preferable to appointing proxies in some ways, although proxies a least have the opportunity to respond to a debate and to reconsider a decision in the light of such debate. What would be most democratic? -- Rexx > On 16 July 2017 at 14:33 Fæ wrote: > > > Thanks Lucy, I'm quite happy to wait until the members can read the > minutes. There's no expectation that replies to questions about > governance have to happen quickly, or need to be answered by the CEO > rather than our unpaid trustees, especially at the weekend. > > The question of proxy votes is interesting, and I think the trustees > would be wise to look at whether the Articles are fit for purpose with > dramatically increasing membership. The Articles emphasise that a > quorum must be "present" and literally proxy voting means that the 30 > votes given at the AGM "by proxy", still requires a person physically > at the meeting to vote who has been nominated by the person not > present. The articles do not give scope for 'postal votes' without a > formal physical proxy, even if special rules are published on a web > page. I presume that the 30 votes by proxy actually did have people > casting those votes who were at the AGM, as I was not allowed to vote > despite being a member, I did not experience the current procedure. > > In terms of governance for future general meetings and how resolutions > get passed, this would be a good time for the charity to review > whether the members would be happy with resolutions being passed by > "ten members" on behalf of the total membership of 498. The AGM > yesterday passed resolutions with just 5% of members physically > present, and the board might reflect on how happy they are that the > discussions and questions raised at the AGM were heard by so small a > proportion of the members of the charity. > > As an illustrative fantasy scenario that I think is legally possible > within the Articles as they are currently published, trustees could be > elected, or resolutions passed, by emailing out a meeting notice, and > after the notice period one could find ten like-minded members to meet > in a pub, which can count trustees and staff, and then vote through > major changes to the charity even though just 2% of the membership > took part. > > It's interesting stuff for anyone with a passion for charity > governance. Though most will find these areas an incredibly unlikely > risk, I think that there are lessons to be learned from other > charities to ensure long term stability. Similarly lessons about good > governance could and should probably be learned in the UK based on the > very recent experience of Wikimedia France, where the views of a few > unpaid volunteers on the board, in highly significant ways, appear to > fail to represent the majority of members; were those members ever > asked and positively encouraged to provide their views. > > Thanks, > Fae > > On 16 July 2017 at 12:50, Lucy Crompton-Reid > wrote: > > Nicola (as teller) read out the total number all of the valid votes, which > > were 57 (30 of them proxy votes submitted before the meeting). Cheers, Lucy > > > > On 16 July 2017 at 11:13, Fæ wrote: > >> > >> A small request for the pending minutes of the AGM; during the meeting > >> there was a count of hands of voting members, presumably to comply > >> with the Articles of Association with regard to the legally required > >> quorum. The final count was not read out, so I will be interested to > >> read that specific number in the minutes, which I believe is needed to > >> comply with legal requirements. With membership at 498, I think that > >> means that a quorum should be a minimum 50 voting members, which could > >> be challenging at
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
Thanks Lucy, I'm quite happy to wait until the members can read the minutes. There's no expectation that replies to questions about governance have to happen quickly, or need to be answered by the CEO rather than our unpaid trustees, especially at the weekend. The question of proxy votes is interesting, and I think the trustees would be wise to look at whether the Articles are fit for purpose with dramatically increasing membership. The Articles emphasise that a quorum must be "present" and literally proxy voting means that the 30 votes given at the AGM "by proxy", still requires a person physically at the meeting to vote who has been nominated by the person not present. The articles do not give scope for 'postal votes' without a formal physical proxy, even if special rules are published on a web page. I presume that the 30 votes by proxy actually did have people casting those votes who were at the AGM, as I was not allowed to vote despite being a member, I did not experience the current procedure. In terms of governance for future general meetings and how resolutions get passed, this would be a good time for the charity to review whether the members would be happy with resolutions being passed by "ten members" on behalf of the total membership of 498. The AGM yesterday passed resolutions with just 5% of members physically present, and the board might reflect on how happy they are that the discussions and questions raised at the AGM were heard by so small a proportion of the members of the charity. As an illustrative fantasy scenario that I think is legally possible within the Articles as they are currently published, trustees could be elected, or resolutions passed, by emailing out a meeting notice, and after the notice period one could find ten like-minded members to meet in a pub, which can count trustees and staff, and then vote through major changes to the charity even though just 2% of the membership took part. It's interesting stuff for anyone with a passion for charity governance. Though most will find these areas an incredibly unlikely risk, I think that there are lessons to be learned from other charities to ensure long term stability. Similarly lessons about good governance could and should probably be learned in the UK based on the very recent experience of Wikimedia France, where the views of a few unpaid volunteers on the board, in highly significant ways, appear to fail to represent the majority of members; were those members ever asked and positively encouraged to provide their views. Thanks, Fae On 16 July 2017 at 12:50, Lucy Crompton-Reid wrote: > Nicola (as teller) read out the total number all of the valid votes, which > were 57 (30 of them proxy votes submitted before the meeting). Cheers, Lucy > > On 16 July 2017 at 11:13, Fæ wrote: >> >> A small request for the pending minutes of the AGM; during the meeting >> there was a count of hands of voting members, presumably to comply >> with the Articles of Association with regard to the legally required >> quorum. The final count was not read out, so I will be interested to >> read that specific number in the minutes, which I believe is needed to >> comply with legal requirements. With membership at 498, I think that >> means that a quorum should be a minimum 50 voting members, which could >> be challenging at future AGMs if the increase in membership is from >> stakeholders such as donors, who are proportionally far less likely to >> be interested in these sorts of internal meetings and discussions. >> >> If my understanding is wrong, and that the charity can pass >> resolutions with fewer than 10% of the membership, such as with say >> 2%, I would be delighted to read the explanation of how that part of >> the governance of the charity works, and what the options would be if >> fewer than one tenth of members wanted to physically come to an AGM. A >> scenario which seems highly likely if membership continues its >> fantastic speedy growth. Fortunately the board benefits from a couple >> of resident experts on governance that can advise, and could probably >> summarise for the rest of us in plain English. >> >> Thanks, >> Fae >> >> On 15 July 2017 at 16:24, Richard Farmbrough >> wrote: >> > All candidates were voted in, and all resolutions passed, nearly >> > unanimously. >> > >> > On 15 Jul 2017 16:17, "Richard Farmbrough" >> > wrote: >> > >> > If Harry joins it will be 499. >> >> ___ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk > > > > > -- > > Lucy Crompton-Reid > > Chief Executive > > Wikimedia UK > > +44 (0) 207 065 0991 > > > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. > > Wikimedia UK is t
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
Hurrah! On 16 Jul 2017 12:50, "Lucy Crompton-Reid" < lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > Nicola (as teller) read out the total number all of the valid votes, which > were 57 (30 of them proxy votes submitted before the meeting). Cheers, Lucy > > On 16 July 2017 at 11:13, Fæ wrote: > >> A small request for the pending minutes of the AGM; during the meeting >> there was a count of hands of voting members, presumably to comply >> with the Articles of Association with regard to the legally required >> quorum. The final count was not read out, so I will be interested to >> read that specific number in the minutes, which I believe is needed to >> comply with legal requirements. With membership at 498, I think that >> means that a quorum should be a minimum 50 voting members, which could >> be challenging at future AGMs if the increase in membership is from >> stakeholders such as donors, who are proportionally far less likely to >> be interested in these sorts of internal meetings and discussions. >> >> If my understanding is wrong, and that the charity can pass >> resolutions with fewer than 10% of the membership, such as with say >> 2%, I would be delighted to read the explanation of how that part of >> the governance of the charity works, and what the options would be if >> fewer than one tenth of members wanted to physically come to an AGM. A >> scenario which seems highly likely if membership continues its >> fantastic speedy growth. Fortunately the board benefits from a couple >> of resident experts on governance that can advise, and could probably >> summarise for the rest of us in plain English. >> >> Thanks, >> Fae >> >> On 15 July 2017 at 16:24, Richard Farmbrough >> wrote: >> > All candidates were voted in, and all resolutions passed, nearly >> > unanimously. >> > >> > On 15 Jul 2017 16:17, "Richard Farmbrough" >> wrote: >> > >> > If Harry joins it will be 499. >> >> ___ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk > > > > > -- > > Lucy Crompton-Reid > > Chief Executive > > Wikimedia UK > > +44 (0) 207 065 0991 > > > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. > > Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The > Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate > Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent > non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility > for its contents.* > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk > ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
Nicola (as teller) read out the total number all of the valid votes, which were 57 (30 of them proxy votes submitted before the meeting). Cheers, Lucy On 16 July 2017 at 11:13, Fæ wrote: > A small request for the pending minutes of the AGM; during the meeting > there was a count of hands of voting members, presumably to comply > with the Articles of Association with regard to the legally required > quorum. The final count was not read out, so I will be interested to > read that specific number in the minutes, which I believe is needed to > comply with legal requirements. With membership at 498, I think that > means that a quorum should be a minimum 50 voting members, which could > be challenging at future AGMs if the increase in membership is from > stakeholders such as donors, who are proportionally far less likely to > be interested in these sorts of internal meetings and discussions. > > If my understanding is wrong, and that the charity can pass > resolutions with fewer than 10% of the membership, such as with say > 2%, I would be delighted to read the explanation of how that part of > the governance of the charity works, and what the options would be if > fewer than one tenth of members wanted to physically come to an AGM. A > scenario which seems highly likely if membership continues its > fantastic speedy growth. Fortunately the board benefits from a couple > of resident experts on governance that can advise, and could probably > summarise for the rest of us in plain English. > > Thanks, > Fae > > On 15 July 2017 at 16:24, Richard Farmbrough > wrote: > > All candidates were voted in, and all resolutions passed, nearly > > unanimously. > > > > On 15 Jul 2017 16:17, "Richard Farmbrough" > wrote: > > > > If Harry joins it will be 499. > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk -- Lucy Crompton-Reid Chief Executive Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0991 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
A small request for the pending minutes of the AGM; during the meeting there was a count of hands of voting members, presumably to comply with the Articles of Association with regard to the legally required quorum. The final count was not read out, so I will be interested to read that specific number in the minutes, which I believe is needed to comply with legal requirements. With membership at 498, I think that means that a quorum should be a minimum 50 voting members, which could be challenging at future AGMs if the increase in membership is from stakeholders such as donors, who are proportionally far less likely to be interested in these sorts of internal meetings and discussions. If my understanding is wrong, and that the charity can pass resolutions with fewer than 10% of the membership, such as with say 2%, I would be delighted to read the explanation of how that part of the governance of the charity works, and what the options would be if fewer than one tenth of members wanted to physically come to an AGM. A scenario which seems highly likely if membership continues its fantastic speedy growth. Fortunately the board benefits from a couple of resident experts on governance that can advise, and could probably summarise for the rest of us in plain English. Thanks, Fae On 15 July 2017 at 16:24, Richard Farmbrough wrote: > All candidates were voted in, and all resolutions passed, nearly > unanimously. > > On 15 Jul 2017 16:17, "Richard Farmbrough" wrote: > > If Harry joins it will be 499. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
On 16/07/17 10:34, Katie Chan wrote: > On 16/07/2017 10:07, Gordon Joly wrote: >> On 15/07/17 22:39, Katie Chan wrote: >>> The staff already worked most of a Saturday. People may want to give >>> them a chance at a (rest of the) weekend? >>> >>> Katie >> >> >> Of course. But why send to the mailing list *FIRST*? > > I wasn't aware Richard Farmbrough is a member of staff. If I missed > that, much congratulations on whatever role he's in. Or maybe you're > proposing that the mailing list should be moderated and the original > email shouldn't had been allowed through until after an email to the > members? > > Katie > It was not official and hence my apologies. I await the official announcement. Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
On 16/07/2017 10:07, Gordon Joly wrote: On 15/07/17 22:39, Katie Chan wrote: The staff already worked most of a Saturday. People may want to give them a chance at a (rest of the) weekend? Katie Of course. But why send to the mailing list *FIRST*? I wasn't aware Richard Farmbrough is a member of staff. If I missed that, much congratulations on whatever role he's in. Or maybe you're proposing that the mailing list should be moderated and the original email shouldn't had been allowed through until after an email to the members? Katie -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM
On 15/07/17 22:39, Katie Chan wrote: > The staff already worked most of a Saturday. People may want to give > them a chance at a (rest of the) weekend? > > Katie Of course. But why send to the mailing list *FIRST*? Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
