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
<rod(a)rodspace.co.uk> 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-bounces@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 <rexx(a)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.
...
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 <faewik(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)farmbrough.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> All candidates were voted in, and all resolutions passed,
>>>> nearly unanimously.
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Jul 2017 16:17, "Richard Farmbrough"
>>>> <richard(a)farmbrough.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If Harry joins it will be 499.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>> wikimediauk-l(a)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.
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk 