The election rules only apply to elected directors, surely.
On 11 Apr 2013, at 23:37, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11 Apr 2013 23:08, "Deryck Chan" <deryckc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 11 April 2013 18:48, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> 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 > 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
