On Mar 6, 2013 11:45 PM, "Andrew Turvey" <andrewrturvey@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> For goodness sake, they even want to change the articles to get some complex provision in there that means there would never be a majority of directors up for election in a single year - because god forbid that the community would actually wanting to kick out a poorly-performing board en mass. God forbid the board should be subject to any accountability for their performance.

Actually, that complex provision is already in there - I wrote it! It does the opposite of what you think - it makes sure there is always at half (rounded down) of the board up for election at the next AGM. Without it, you might have the whole board resign at once and a new board all be elected for two year terms and then there is no election next year. My complex provision avoids that by giving some of them one year terms.

The lawyers are suggesting that having co-option means we could choose to remove that clause, but I didn't follow that reasoning.