> Q1: How many directors do you think the first permanent board should have as
> a maximum?

I think 5 is good. 7 would work, more than that is unwieldy. (It
should be an odd number, ideally.)

> Q2: Do you agree that the Board should be elected using the "Approval
> Voting" system?

Yes. Single Transferable Vote would be a good alternative, but it
rather more difficult to organise and I don't think it's worth it.

> Q3: Do you agree that candidates who receive 50% or less of the vote will
> not be elected?

This question is really asking which is better, a smaller than
intended board or a board which doesn't have a strong mandate from the
membership? One alternative would be to have a second election in the
event that less than the maximum number of board members get 50%, with
just the top 5 (or whatever the max is) and a simple yea or nay on
whether to give each a seat (this gets round the risk of someone who
is approved of by the community not getting a seat due to tactical
voting).

> Q4: Do you agree that as an exception to this rule, the candidate who
> receives the most votes will always be elected - even if they dont get more
> than 50%?

Yes, someone has to run the charity. In fact, the minimum number of
board members is 3, isn't it? So the top 3 need to be elected
regardless (otherwise the top one would have to choose another two
board members, giving them far too much power for somebody without a
mandate). (The alternative is leaving some of the outgoing board in
power, but why should they be preferred if they didn't do better in
the election?) My idea of a 2nd election would be this situation less
likely.

> Q5: Is there any way that you think the election should be run differently
> to the election of the interim Board?

There is the question of how the vote will actually be conducted. The
default is a show of hands in the AGM, but alternatives are a secret
ballot at the AGM or (I believe) a secret ballot held after the AGM
with people able to vote by email or online, or something. A show of
hands is quickest and simplest, my only concern is (as I said in the
last election), I'm not entirely comfortable with members of the board
knowing that other members of the board voted against them (I would
hope it wouldn't cause major problems, but it might cause some
awkwardness). If it's going to be a secret ballot, I would vote for it
being at the AGM itself, that allows the old board to hand over to the
new board there and then and the new board to immeadiately hold their
first meeting. All candidates will be known in advance and people can
vote by proxy, so there is no real harm in not giving people a chance
to vote after the meeting.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Reply via email to