I am still reading through all the papers, including the full 87 page document on the CRAG website.
I don’t yet have a considered opinion, but one important point for the Guild is the Council of Representatives would be 25-40% of its present size with each society retaining representation.
Currently there are 189 representatives from 66 affiliated societies.+ 7 life members + 5 additional members + 6 ex-officio members.
So 25-40% of 189 -> 207 is 48 to 77 representatives.
Presuming as each society retains representation that gives -19 to +17 extra representatives, so the W & P currently with 5 reps might get 1 extra, so the W & P would have 2 reps.
These people wouldn’t make technical decisions and just elect the Executive, approve rule changes and the accounts. They are not Executive members or work group leaders and are not necessarily on work groups. Work group leaders are appointed by the Executive, and work group members are appointed by their work group leader. Representation of working groups would not be as geographically or societally diverse. Instead one would hope it was merit based. Currently the Guild could elect a CC representative with a particular interest in standing for membership of a particular committee and currently there is a good chance of that representative being elected to the committee. With the CRO this route does not exist.
Members of the W & P would need to be more direct in approaching the CRO’s work group members rather than relying on local contact via Guild representatives.