Talk:Draft rule changes

From Wikimedia Australia
Revision as of 20:19, 19 August 2013 by Gnangarra (talk | contribs) (noting as I go)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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?