Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:47:22 +0100> To:
wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> From: gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> Subject: Re:
[Wikimediauk-l] CRB checks> > At 11:36 +0100 12/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:>
>2008/9/12 Gordon Joly <gordon.joly@pobox.com>:> > > At 23:32 +0100
10/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:> >>> > Gaurantor Membership i believe would
need to be overseen, Normal> >>>> members however would probably not need
to go through the same process> >>>> as it isn't a legally binding
position. I suppose thats > >>>>something the first> >>>>
board> >>>> needs to decide upon.> >>>> >>>True. I
tend to forget about supporting membership, since it's a> >>>fairly
meaningless thing - it just means you're a regular donor and> >>>get an
email every so often. I would hope that most people become> >>>guarantor
members, otherwise they're not really involved (I think> >>>anyone
representing the chapter at official chapter activities ought> > >>to be a
full member of the charity - they're the people best placed to> >>>be
voting at AGMs, etc).> >>>> >>> >> I disagree with this
approach. I would suggest that approximately 10%> >> of Wikimedia UK Chapter are
guarantor members.> >> >Why?> >> >______________> > > One
reason is the management of the AGM. With say 400 members and a > 25% quorum, you have
to get a hundred people (or more) in one place > within a very fixed time frame.>
> Also governance issues, in that everybody must understand their > responsibilities
and liabilities.> > Calls for an EGM could happen from time to time as well.>
> Gordo>
I still dont see the reason to restrict the number of gaurantor
members?
_________________________________________________________________
Get all your favourite content with the slick new MSN Toolbar - FREE
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354027/direct/01/