Return to article

Meeting talk:2010 AGM

Revision as of 05:57, 4 September 2018 by Samwilson (talk | contribs) (Samwilson moved page Talk:2010-2011 AGM to Meeting talk:2010 AGM: match other AGM pages)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I'm hoping that one of the reports will have some stat.s about how many members we currently have - I'd like to request that info. if poss. and hope this note will suffice :-) cheers, Privatemusings 09:56, 15 September 2010 (EST)

This information will be in my report like last year. If you're planning on coming to the AGM and editing this site, you really need to pay your fees as I'll be updating the members access very soon, both for the website and the members mailing lists. Sarah 12:24, 15 September 2010 (EST)
John chased me up on gchat too - thanks for your patience (and his persistence :-) - I paid up a short while ago, and am pleased to be 'financial' once more :-) (with apologies for any additional administrative overhead my general tardiness creates too). cheers, Privatemusings 12:29, 15 September 2010 (EST)

monthly IRC 'meetings'?

see Billabong#monthly_IRC_availability_for_committee_members.3F too - I'm hoping that the incoming committee might commit to ensuring one (or more! or everyone!) member being available at a specified time of convenience on an IRC channel, just really to keep the wheels of chapter communication moving smoothly - I'd certainly plan to pop in regularly, and would like to be able to invite other AU folk along to find out more - this doesn't need a formal resolution or anything of course, but it'd be nice to talk over (or better yet, announce!) at the AGM, I think? cheers, Privatemusings 13:27, 17 September 2010 (EST)

Was already announced last year but never happened - not sure why. I'm not absolutely sure IRC is the place though - not everyone knows how to use it or has the necessary hardware to do so. Also a lot of people can't type fast and get "left behind" in such discussions - speaking personally that's definitely not a problem for me (I can type consistently at ~90-100wpm) but as we're seeking to be more inclusive this year we need to keep that in mind for whatever activities we decide to have. Orderinchaos 14:18, 17 September 2010 (EST)
I must have missed the announcement ;-) - should you make the committee, would you be up for a monthly shortish commitment to hop on IRC for a publicly logged chit chat? - I think it'd help with chapter momentum, and re. your concerns, of course it wouldn't be the only way of folk keeping in touch - I think it's clearly a net positive - you up for it? :-) Privatemusings 17:24, 17 September 2010 (EST)
It was discussed at the committee's retreat and we drew up a schedule for it but the meetings didn't end up happening. I think it was probably "announced" in the minutes and report from the retreat but I don't recall there being a formal announcement or anything like that because it basically fell over right from the start, before it even got to the stage of inviting people to attend. I think the reason it didn't go ahead is that Brianna was busy on the LUV committee and then ended up leaving ours, as she was the one driving it and organising the schedule etc. I don't think it's very fair to put Andrew on the spot to commit to a monthly "chat" because it's really not up to him - if we start having open meetings again, it will be a committee decision. And as the new committee will be at least two-thirds new members, half of whom have never served on the committee before and will no doubt need some time to get up to speed with everything, and they have a lot of work to get done pretty quickly, it's probably not likely to happen immediately anyway. Sarah 12:40, 18 September 2010 (EST)
I think this is a good idea, although I note what Sarah said above. Without seeing the specifics of the proposal I can't commit, but I'd likely be up for popping into such a meeting. I don't see any reason why this needs to be driven by the committee specifically; it's a good opportunity for a motivated member to set something up in my view! Lankiveil 13:59, 18 September 2010 (EST).
I agree with Sarah's summary of what happened. Case of, if the new committee commits to the idea, and assuming I'm re-elected of course, I'd certainly put up my hand for being part of it - it's important to understand what is important to members and there's a variety of ways of getting feedback. I think the emails I received and the IdeaScale feedback before the planning meeting were significant influences on me in how I approached things. As Sarah and Craig have said it'd be unfair to commit the new committee to something before they've had a chance to consider it, and I'd also rather not limit them from considering or proposing better options for community involvement and feedback if they exist. Orderinchaos 16:10, 18 September 2010 (EST)

Memberdb Election Results

It's probably a bug or my misunderstanding of what it means, but why does the Election Results say "There were 16 members who voted in this election" at the top but "There were 31 votes" in the election that mattered?

I can understand fewer votes than voters, but not more. The rest of the stats make sense, if a little surprising -- assuming 5 people who voted for Stephen didn't mark a second preference. markhurd 12:11, 20 September 2010 (EST)

I assume that means that 16 members cast 31 votes between the three candidates. That does seem odd, as it means most people voted for two candidates (not casting a vote for the third candidate, and one person voted for only one person. John Vandenberg 15:01, 20 September 2010 (EST)
No, they voted 31 first preference votes, which means at least 31 people voted. Then the 8 for Stephen were redistributed, and 5 of them did not supply a second preference (assuming those numbers are correctly reported). markhurd 15:18, 20 September 2010 (EST)
Hmmm... I've checked the other election results and the number of voters reported in them correspond to the number of first round votes for single position elections (with some abstensions), but not for the first round votes of the multi-member elections. I'd read the memberdb documentation but I can't find it. markhurd 16:12, 20 September 2010 (EST)