I'll start, and then I'll ask my colleague to add a few comments.
I'll go back to the intention of the changes in the voting rules, which is a part of the question. What's being done is to change from what's called a pluralist model to a majority-vote model, which has been called for by experts in corporate governance, particularly those on the owner side, in order to improve the responsiveness of the folks who are put forward for board positions to the shareholders by requiring they have majority support rather than simply perhaps one “yes” vote, with all the other votes being uncontested, or being part of a slate, which doesn't allow for differentiation between different directors. We're using this approach to extend shareholder democracy and create more responsiveness.
This equally applies if it's a distributing entity of any sort. Obviously, a non-profit isn't distributing to its ownership, so the policy doesn't apply.
The point is to make a stronger linkage between the interests of the owners of the firm and the activity of the board of directors that actually carries out that fiduciary role.