Hey Phil
Good stuff! My primary concern at 7 days was that many people are encouraged to participate in BCA votes following seeing discussion on the ballot questions on social media, including here ok UKC, as well as hearing about the ballot through their clubs or friendship circles. This is especially important as the BCA lacks email addresses for at least 2000 of its members, unless that has changed since I was Secretary.
Therefore, 7 days would have allowed very little time for open forum discussion and circulation which is a healthy part of any democracy.... especially given the magnitude of some of the proposals on the table.
It would also not allow enough time to deal with the influx of people claiming not to have received their ballots or having issues with whatever system is being used.
I still think that 20 days is a strange number, and when the constitution says 'approximately 30' then why not choose 30 days and just move the Council meeting back a few more weeks? Unless there is some critical deadline that needs a council meeting in the first week of November which could justify the reduced period? I just worry that any deviation from the constitution puts the decisions made open to question, especially from those who don't like the outcome. I'm fairly sure this is something the newly invigorated Council would prefer to avoid. My 'honeymoon period' as Secretary last year was quickly halted when the CSCC tried to discredit the outcomes of the AGM based (incorrectly) on constitutional anomalies, so as the voice of experience, sticking as closely to the constitution as possible will make your life easier in the long run
Good luck and thank you for all your hard work! The new team seem to be doing a very fine job indeed under some VERY challenging circumstances.