Return to article Talk: Rules ← Talk:Rules You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: Please log in or request an account to edit here. You can view and copy the source of this page. ==Ideas for Rule changes== I am collecting together ideas for rule changes. These could then be made together at one Special General Meeting or at an AGM, so approval by ChapCom and CAV is done in one hit (and one expense with CAV). They will need developing into specific amendments at a later stage. :Was this discussion announced on the member's list? I don't remember it being brought up, and it sounds like something that the whole chapter should be having input on. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] 12:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC). ::I was just finding a place to put ideas that were arising and so not forgetting about them. They are not urgent. We would need to put them to a special meeting or the next AGM. Neither are soon. As Public Officer I see one of my roles is to keep track of ideas for changing the rules. Input is welcome, but there is no rush to action here. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ==Ordinary members of Committee== adding 2 more Ordinary Member positions :I agree there should be more, but they should be centre bias seats, with the recent PowerHouse proposal if the committee had a local person then the committee/WM-au is able to take an active role in organising the event. I understand that we are a national body and as such it shouldn't matter where people are but we cant afford to say to an outside request "you'll need to get someone there involved because we cant/wont tell people they have to". [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC) ::Gnangarra what do you mean "centre bias seats"? --[[User:Pfctdayelise|Brianna (pfctdayelise)]] 03:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC) ''20. (3) (b) two ordinary members-- '' to ''four ordinary members-- '' and ''27. (1) Any 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum for the conduct of the business of a meeting of the committee.'' to ''Any 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum for the conduct of the business of a meeting of the committee.'' --[[User:Pfctdayelise|Brianna (pfctdayelise)]] 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ==Standing for more than one position on Committee== There was that rule we came up against this past week regarding people submitting their name for election for a specific position, not being able to then submit their name for the ordinary member position in the event that they do not get elected to the specific position. I clearly remember discussing this last year and we agreed that we would allow people to run for multiple positions and then withdraw for the subsequent position if elected to the first. :How would that work with voting by memberdb? I do not see from the AGM how we can have withdrawn a candidate and recounted, or at least not quickly. [[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 02:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC) ::I don't know how it would work with the memberdb as I know absolutely nothing about how that works but if it isn't viable to withdraw a candidate or have the seat go to the next person then we should perhaps consider looking into other methods of voting.[[User:Sarah|Sarah]] 02:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC) :::Memberdb handles people running for multiple positions just fine - the positions are drawn in a particular order and as soon as you have won one position you are automatically excluded from all the following ones. --[[User:Pfctdayelise|Brianna (pfctdayelise)]] 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Thanks Brianna. That excellent and that's exactly what I'm thinking of. I know other groups I've been involved with allow people to run for multiple positions in that way, so I figured there would be software that allowed this but it's great to know we can do it with what we already have if we were to decide to make a change to the rules in this regard. [[User:Sarah|Sarah]] 12:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC) I think we still need a limit of some kind, maybe one executive position and the general committee, close memberdb before/as the meeting commences. Then make provision(time) within the Agenda by announcing the exec positions earlier then reopen memberdb for those that wish to alter their votes for the GC seats. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 02:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC) :I agree that members would have to chose one executive position, but could also nominate for an ordinary member of committee position, but the problem with voting is to cancel all votes for a person standing as an ordinary member if they were elected to an exective position, rather than allowing people to change votes. Some people may have voted and would not be at the meeting and their vote would have to be removed or altered, otherwise it might cause problems. Could any expert on memberdb comment? --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC) ::Memberdb will handle this fine. We don't have to do anything special at all. --[[User:Pfctdayelise|Brianna (pfctdayelise)]] 03:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC) ''23. (2) A candidate may only be nominated for one office, or as an ordinary member of the committee, prior to the annual general meeting.'' to ''23. (2) A candidate may be nominated for any number of offices, as well as an ordinary member of the committee, prior to the annual general meeting.'' == Using software to conduct the election prior to the AGM == Change ''23 (6) The ballot for the election of officers and ordinary members of the committee must be conducted at the annual general meeting in such manner as the committee may direct.'' to something like ''The ballot for the election of officers and ordinary members of the committee may be conducted at the annual general meeting, or via voting software prior to the annual general meeting, in such manner as the committee may direct. If voting software is used, the voting period must be a minimum period of five days, the source code must be available to members, and anonymised voting data must be provided to any member on request.'' --[[User:Pfctdayelise|Brianna (pfctdayelise)]] 11:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Looks good. Is this the first amendment we have a precise good wording for? --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC) :Oh, I can add some more wording to the other ones now. They are pretty straightforward. --[[User:Pfctdayelise|Brianna (pfctdayelise)]] 23:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC) == rule changes == per [http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Rules&oldid=3359 our pres], one of the rule changes discussed at the recent(ish) AGM didn't pass - I believe it was to do with requiring a 75% or 66% majority, or somesuch? - I think a short note here from someone clued up as to the facts of the matter would be great for the permanent record :-) - I'll ping people through other means when I get the chance next week(ish) :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 20:16, 24 October 2010 (EST) :This will be covered in the minutes of the AGM, which will be sent to the members list in the next day or two for final review, and then published. [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] 09:15, 25 October 2010 (EST) Template used on this page: Template:Done (view source) Return to Talk:Rules. Retrieved from "https://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Talk:Rules"