At 13:21 +0000 30/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > Yes, nice to agree. >> >> The Governance of WMUK is far from settled AFAIK. A very large group >> (hundreds or thousands) cannot have a single voice with some > > hierarchical or other structures. > >The Governance is pretty much determined by the Companies Act 2006, >the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association. There >are members who elect a board at the AGM and the board runs the >charity. The members have certain additional powers which can be >exercised in writing, at AGMs or at EGMs. "Member" is this context >means "guarantor member". > >The part that isn't settled yet is membership fees and what forms of >membership we'll have (if any) in addition to membership of the >company proper, but whatever is decided, they won't get a vote at >AGMs. > >Having 100s or over 1000s of members shouldn't be a problem - most >will probably vote by proxy at the AGM. There are public companies >with 10s or even 100s of thousands of shareholders that manage just >fine, the vast majority just fill out a proxy statement that is sent >to them in the post and never go near the actual meeting.
Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean? Gordo -- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
