Yes, we seem to have tried on occasion to broaden the appeal of an AGM. I remember the 2011 AGM in Bristol where a lot of us informally held a sort of wikimeet afterwards. The 2012 AGM in at the Science Museum had some speakers before the AGM, of course, and the 2013 in Lincoln featured a strong programme of speakers as well as 30 minutes of scheduled debate with the CEO. The quality of speakers in those cases was high, but I'm not sure that an undiluted diet of listening to speakers can be viewed as a good example volunteer-centred activity.

Clearly the 2014 AGM was a different event as it was embedded in Wikimania.

But the point I'm trying to make is that participation is far more rewarding than passive listening.

The reason that member-focussed organisations, like trades unions, political parties, etc. organise their AGM as part of an annual conference is that they provide opportunities for their members to debate previous minutes and each of the reports presented, and for discussion of the actions of their officers over the preceding year. The reason why companies hold AGMs in such a way that shareholders can turn up and speak is that our system values transparency and accountability, and involving shareholders assists that significantly.

Formal company meetings do not have to be dull as dishwater; and treating that as inevitable will, I suggest, lead to few members wishing to turn up. We cannot seriously claim to be re-focussing on volunteers if we can't even claim to be doing our best to put them at the centre of our AGM.

I've yet to see elections that provided a channel for member feedback; perhaps this year will break the mold. Nevertheless don't you agree that turning discussion of the three reports and the work of the charity into a single item (out of 11) is likely to give the wrong impression of the value the charity places on member participation in the AGM?

-- 

Rexx