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 best

Fabian

aka leutha

On 16 July 2017 at 19:01 Rex X <rexx@blueyonder.co.uk> 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.

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 <faewik@gmail.com> 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

<lucy.crompton-reid@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 <faewik@gmail.com> 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 <richard@farmbrough.co.uk>
wrote:

All candidates were voted in, and all resolutions passed, nearly
unanimously.

On 15 Jul 2017 16:17, "Richard Farmbrough" <richard@farmbrough.co.uk>
wrote:

If Harry joins it will be 499.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@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
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk