Difference between revisions of "Talk:Draft rule changes"

From Wikimedia Australia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎By Craig: thought re rules publishing)
Line 49: Line 49:
 
I'm happy we now have some actual changes to discuss and pore over rather than simply talking about what should happen, so full credit to you for that.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] ([[User talk:Lankiveil|talk]]) 21:40, 19 August 2013 (EST)
 
I'm happy we now have some actual changes to discuss and pore over rather than simply talking about what should happen, so full credit to you for that.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] ([[User talk:Lankiveil|talk]]) 21:40, 19 August 2013 (EST)
 
:::for the rule I think we should have the current rules at that page highlighting the most recent changes but create archives for the previous versions such that the current rules would become [[Association Rules prior to admentment at AGM/SGM 2013]] that way we are only maintaining one colour change and retaining the prior rules intact. The top of the page could then be linked to each version, and the resolution that changed it. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 21:48, 19 August 2013 (EST)
 
:::for the rule I think we should have the current rules at that page highlighting the most recent changes but create archives for the previous versions such that the current rules would become [[Association Rules prior to admentment at AGM/SGM 2013]] that way we are only maintaining one colour change and retaining the prior rules intact. The top of the page could then be linked to each version, and the resolution that changed it. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 21:48, 19 August 2013 (EST)
 +
:::::Yeah, actually that thought flickered through my mind a while ago ... wouldn't take long to create ?three archives (but please, red colouring in each would be helpful to understand the differences made. Or perhaps just start the archive with the earliest version and update three times (including dating at the top) so people can do diffs for those changes? [[User:Tony1|Tony1]] ([[User talk:Tony1|talk]]) 21:57, 19 August 2013 (EST)

Revision as of 22:57, 19 August 2013

I restrained myself from editing the pretty gruesome formatting throughout (and the wording in the many places where it doesn't really matter at the moment).

Bold purple (just about the only colour left) for insertions/replacements. Strike-throughs for deletions. Numbering changed without marking, to avoid bad clutter.

The proposed changes fall into three types, which I suggest members at an SGM be invited to vote on as blocks (purely as a practical measure):

  1. The weird definition of secretary is simplified—rule 2. Trivial but annoying. In a few places subsequently, the full version is given after this definition, which I've harmonised to the "abbreviated" form in the definitions.
  2. The name of the Victorian act is corrected (ahem)—rule 2.
  3. Removal of the knotty bit about centres for electronic meetings, which must have returning officers (which presents strange problems compared with individual participants, and don't ever seem to have attracted more than one or two people)—Rules 9(5) and 10(9).
  4. Removal of the committee's power to fine members $500 as a disciplinary measure—rule 7(1)(a) [already discussed and proposed by Craig].
  5. Addition of email address where personal information is listed—rules 4(3)(a) and 5(a) [21st century?].
  6. Rationalisation of the request-to-inspect-and-copy-members'-register wording, with inserted reference to the privacy provisions in the act—rule 5.
  7. A move to direct elections of all committee members on an equal basis, with committee elections of office bearers.

Should rule 15 not be "Adjournment of GENERAL meetings"?

Feedback, advice, criticism from all members is very welcome at this draft stage—perhaps below on this page? It would be good to get the draft on the road very soon.

The only controversial proposal, I think, will be the move away from direct office-bearer elections. The membership could reject that while approving any other measures if it chose to. I'd prefer a staggered system of four plus four committee members elected each year, but it's complicated—I could write it, but are you prepared for so much new text? To me, simplicity is an important factor, especially given the time constraints, so it's a simple two-year term with all positions vacant every second year.

Tony1 (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2013 (EST)


By Gnangarra

reading at the moment, just dropping notes as I go

  • section 9(3)(d) needs to be check it currently links to the 1981 act.. has this changed in the 2012 version?
    I changed the link, too. Tony1 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2013 (EST)
    I'm pretty shocked that CAV hasn't picked up on that. Section 30 in the new act seems to refer to something entirely different. The link itself is not a part of the rules, but the text is, and it needs to be updated. Lankiveil (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2013 (EST)
  • returning officer is necessary for each venue just to ensure everyone is recognised, accountable for ensuring all votes are recorded and, reduce any confusion.
    If this is going to be too much trouble, I'll get rid of that part of the proposal now. Tony1 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2013 (EST)
  • 23.6.a needs to be there to define when a vote can occur...
    Well spotted. Fixed. Tony1 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2013 (EST)
  • 23.6.b is necessary for transparency, other wise a committee could manipulate the voting process
    Fixed. Thx. Tony1 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2013 (EST)
  • 21.4 should be truncated to In the event of a casual vacancy, as specified in rule 24, in any office referred to in sub-rule (1), the committee must within 14 days appoint an eligible member of the organisation to the vacant office rather then removed all together as its necessary to ensure responsibility in office bearer positions and continuity of records.
    You're right. Fixed. Tony1 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2013 (EST)
  • 22.2 needs consideration if a member resigns after 6 months does the replacement member need to be endorsed at the next AGM(6 months) current wording or the next election time theoretically in 18 months....
  • where model rules is noted, does this need to specify that these were the ones as per 1981 act.... given we now define the act as the 2012,

By Craig

On the topic of Rule 15 it's this way in the earliest version of the rules and also in LUV's rules which are also based on the model rules, which would indicate to me that it was probably that way in the old model rules. Although it's somewhat obvious from context, I don't see that a change to the title of this rule to make it clear that it refers to general meetings and not other types of meetings would be a huge problem.

Likewise for the odd description of Secretary is also from the model rules. If the intent is simply to simplify the wording without changing the meaning I am happy for this to occur in principle, although we'd need to be very careful of course that there was no subtle change of meaning.

I agree with Tony's comment that if changes are going to be made, it's best to make those changes as minimal as possible while still having the desired effect.

It's not necessary to specify the colour in the proposal, as that is something we add later on. As you've noted, we're running out of colours and it might be good to have a monochrome version of the rules for people to read, and a separate colourful one for anyone that's really interested in when each change was made.

I'm happy we now have some actual changes to discuss and pore over rather than simply talking about what should happen, so full credit to you for that. Lankiveil (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2013 (EST)

for the rule I think we should have the current rules at that page highlighting the most recent changes but create archives for the previous versions such that the current rules would become Association Rules prior to admentment at AGM/SGM 2013 that way we are only maintaining one colour change and retaining the prior rules intact. The top of the page could then be linked to each version, and the resolution that changed it. Gnangarra 21:48, 19 August 2013 (EST)
Yeah, actually that thought flickered through my mind a while ago ... wouldn't take long to create ?three archives (but please, red colouring in each would be helpful to understand the differences made. Or perhaps just start the archive with the earliest version and update three times (including dating at the top) so people can do diffs for those changes? Tony1 (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2013 (EST)