2009/12/7 AndrewRT <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>om>:
Thanks everyone for the comments. To respond to three
points raised:
On Dec 6, 5:11 pm, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/12/6 AndrewRT
<andrewrtur...(a)googlemail.com>om>:
That's pretty much what I've been thinking, although I'm not sure we
need it yet. I think we ought to let the members of each branch elect
their chair, though (ratified by the board).
I think that's stage 2 - autonomous branches. Where you only have two
or three members having a full blown election seems unnecessary, but a
"skeleton branch" would be useful because it gives us a way of using
the name before moving to a full autonomous branch.
I don't think we need them until we are ready to use them fully. Do we
have volunteers to be the regional chairs you mention? If they end up
just being figureheads that things are done in the name of, I would be
opposed.
For the constitutionalists among readers, I'd
propose we establish the
branches through an Article 28 resolution of the Board, ratified by
the next AGM.
I disagree. I think Article 3.1 is better suited to it.
Article 3.1 would need permission of the AGM first and I'm not sure it
would quite fit. I'm talking about two particular projects that could
be started before the AGM.
You're talking about members each being in a particular branch - that
sounds like the perfect thing to use membership classes for. If we do
that then all the rules for holding branch meetings are already in
place. I don't know what projects you are talking about, but I think
trying to hold them under regional names before the AGM is a bad idea,
we just aren't ready for that.