Hi Tom, Yes, you're right that due to a drafting problem one particular combination of votes at the EGM would result in an unanticipated result - we would effect a change in the voting system, but would not have a specified maximum number of directors.
That is a bit irritating but it could be remedied with a motion at the AGM to introduce a maximum number of directors. If the maximum of 11 Directors proposed to the EGM was rejected we would clearly have to have a further debate about how many Directors was the right number. So - some imperfect drafting, despite the many rounds of amendments - but no crisis. Chris On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote: > I would like to draw attention to a discussion on the UK wiki: > > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:EGM_2013/Resolutions#How_the_vote_works > > Mike Peel has pointed out some pretty serious issues with the way the > resolutions we're supposed to be voting on at the weekend are drafted > and how they interact with each other. > > The main problem comes from the third resolution, which introduces > Single Transferable Vote. In addition to doing that, it has a seemly > minor change from specifying the maximum number of trustees directly > to saying the maximum is in the articles. The problem is, the articles > say there is no maximum. > > The two other resolutions amend the articles, the first introduces an > overall maximum of 11 trustees and the second specifies 7 elected > trustees and 3 co-opted trustees (there is intentionally one vacancy > to make transistions easier). If neither of those resolutions passes, > but the STV one does, that leaves us with no maximum and everything > falls to pieces. Mike says everyone getting over 50% of the vote will > be elected, regardless of number, which isn't correct - the 50% thing > doesn't exist under the STV approach (it wouldn't make sense). A STV > without a well defined number of people being elected is simply > impossible (you can't calculate the quota) so we just can't have an > election. (We could still appoint people by some other ordinary > resolution at the AGM, but the election rules would be completely > meaningless.) > > If the first resolution is passed, but not the second, then we would > end up electing 11 trustees, which isn't what anyone intended. If both > pass, it works fine, but I know some people are keen on STV but not on > the rest (eg. me!) and there isn't any way the meeting can introduce > STV and keep the size and composition of the board the same. > > It is too late to amend any of the motions at this point, and I don't > think it makes sense to go ahead with a meeting where it isn't > possible for the meeting to reach certain results that it clearly > should be able to (we were originally going to have an EGM for just > the STV vote - there is no reason members should be forced to make the > other changes in order to get STV). Therefore I propose (as I've > proposed before) that we cancel the EGM and use the time to have a > proper discussion about what we want to do. We can then have the > actual votes at the AGM (there won't be any significant harm from the > delay - we'll have to have this year's election under approval voting > rather than STV, but that isn't the end of the world). > > If the board doesn't cancel the EGM, then I will be proposing a motion > to adjourn at the start of the meeting. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
