On 11 Apr 2013 23:08, "Deryck Chan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11 April 2013 18:48, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> There are several combinations that result in problems. Pretty much >> anything other than all passing and all failing is problematic to >> varying degrees. > > > By "anything" you mean "3 but not 2 (irrespective of 1)". If 3 doesn't pass we'll still be returning a total of 7 new and continuing trustees at the AGM.
Only if you mentally replace "directors" with "elected directors" throughout the old election rules. Read literally, the old election rules limit the board to 7 board members, which means the board couldn't actually coopt anyone because the board would be full. >> > 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. >> >> It is more than irritating to not know the number of seats being >> elected until a few minutes before the election... > > > The number will be published on the agenda, The proposed number would be. We wouldn't know the actual number until it is voted on, a few minutes before the election.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
