From Wikimedia Australia
Jump to: navigation, search

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. Bduke 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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. 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. --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". Gnangarra 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Gnangarra what do you mean "centre bias seats"? --Brianna (pfctdayelise) 03:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

20. (3) (b) two ordinary members--


four ordinary members--


27. (1) Any 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum for the conduct of the business of a meeting of the committee.


Any 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum for the conduct of the business of a meeting of the committee.

--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. 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.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. --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. 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. Gnangarra 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? --Bduke 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Memberdb will handle this fine. We don't have to do anything special at all. --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.


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.

Yes check.svg Done This was amended at the 2010 AGM. John Vandenberg 17:59, 7 August 2011 (EST)

Using software to conduct the election prior to the AGM


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.

--Brianna (pfctdayelise) 11:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Is this the first amendment we have a precise good wording for? --Bduke 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I can add some more wording to the other ones now. They are pretty straightforward. --Brianna (pfctdayelise) 23:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done This was amended at the 2011 SGM. John Vandenberg 17:59, 7 August 2011 (EST)

rule changes

per 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) :-) 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. John Vandenberg 09:15, 25 October 2010 (EST)

Now that the rule change has been approved by CAV, we need to have updated too, assuming the changes were (or will be) approved by the Wikimedia Foundation. markhurd 11:12, 23 November 2010 (EST)

I have updated meta and informed ChapCom of the previous and proposed rule changes. John Vandenberg 23:09, 8 April 2011 (EST)

automatic committee nominations

I'd like a change to 23(1) such that all committee members are automatically candidates for the annual committee election unless they inform the secretary otherwise before the call for nominations. This would be a problem if an officer wanted to be a candidate for a different office. I'm not sure how to cater for that scenario. John Vandenberg 22:13, 20 September 2011 (EST)

I think that would be helpful. If it's a different position, they can just nominate with everybody else. --99of9 22:22, 20 September 2011 (EST)
Rules 23(2) only allows a person to nominate for one office. I am a bit partial to the way that rule currently works, as it forces people to pick an office which suits their skills or motivations.
We could say that any officer is automatically a candidate for the office they hold, or by writing they may be a candidate for another office of their choosing, or may decline to be a candidate for any office. John Vandenberg 22:30, 20 September 2011 (EST)

nominators names

In previous years we have listed the nominators publicly. The rules don't require that the nominators are even made available to the voters. (see Rule 23) I would prefer that the Rules were clear regarding whether the nominator names should be part of the ballot. I prefer for the nominators to be disclosed to the voters. However we may receive less nominations if the nominators must be published publicly. Also, voters may make incorrect value judgements about the candidate based on who the nominators are, like "they are only on the ballot because of person B and C, and I don't like person C" whereas person D may also have nominated the candidate if they had only known that the candidate was interested. John Vandenberg 15:32, 21 September 2011 (EST)

In any other organisation I'm involved in, that information is regarded to be public (or at least membership) information. I don't support any change which would reduce transparency - a good nomination process should be open to member scrutiny so that they can be assured we as the committee are doing the right thing by them. Andrew Owens 03:43, 22 September 2011 (EST)
Great. It sounds like we agree on this. Do you agree that the rules should be amended to require that nominator names are disclosed to at least the membership, and with sufficient advance notice that they can properly evaluate the candidates? If you agree, we can create a proposal page to discuss ways to amend the rules accordingly. John Vandenberg 09:26, 22 September 2011 (EST)
I'd be fine with that. Andrew Owens 00:54, 24 September 2011 (EST)

nomination closing date

Rule 23(6) requires that if electronic elections are used, the election must be held prior to the AGM. However rule 23(1)(b) only requires the nominations to close seven days before the AGM. I think the nominations should close seven days before the election, so that voters have time to consider the candidates. i.e. I propose something like:


"(b) delivered to the Secretary of the Association not less than 7 days before the date fixed for the holding of the annual general meeting"


"(b) delivered to the Secretary of the Association not less than 7 days before the date fixed for the holding of the annual general meeting or the election, whichever comes first."

John Vandenberg 09:13, 22 September 2011 (EST)

Rule 2(2)

I note the most recent approved changes make this rule a dangling sentence. Something like this could be added:

(b) the president, otherwise.

or the sentence should be adjusted to not suggest an alternative, or even be completely removed.

(Previously this was a reference to the public officer.)

Mark Hurd 13:04, 1 July 2013 (EST)

Almost everything is 'Special'

Rule 11 says everything at a general meeting except a handful of resolutions at the AGM are special business and so, I assume without looking up what special business actually means, every other resolution is a special resolution.

So, for example almost every meeting requires 21 days notice (rule 12), and any additional business someone wants to add to a meeting needs to be sent to the Secretary in writing before that date (rule 12(4), and implied by rule 12(3)).

I wonder if we should formalise that the Secretary should announce the intention of a meeting 4 weeks beforehand, giving people 1 week to notify the Secretary of additional business. Mark Hurd 13:04, 1 July 2013 (EST)

A motion normally only requires a simple majority to be carried, but a special motion requires a 75% majority in order to pass. Special motions also require additional notice, as you've pointed out. The rules and act define a number of things as requiring a special motion, such as the removal of committee members, rule changes, etc. Anything that is not explicitly a special motion can be carried with an ordinary motion, and ordinary motions can be proposed and put on the spot at meetings (I believe) without any advance notice. Lankiveil (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (EST).


I don't understand what this is doing in the rules (rule 6—my underlining):

(1) A member of the Association may resign from the Association by giving notice in writing to the Secretary of his or her intention to resign no less than

(a) one week after conclusion of a procedure defined in these Rules, and
(b) one month after payment of all moneys due and payable.

Tony1 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2013 (EST)

Correcting update of ceased member in register

I've made a correction to User:Graham87's wholesale update on July 1. Clearly these two points were describing extra things to log in the register, not further reasons to deem resignation.

(I signaled this was an issue in an email to Craig yesterday when my machine, and Chrome specifically, was not up to reviewing the changes.)

Others may want to correct their copies of these rules.

Mark Hurd (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2013 (EST)

Thanks, Mark! Graham87 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2013 (EST)

What's "rule 29(3)(b)(ii)"?

The change from the Annual General Meeting on 25 November 2012 includes at 31(3):

(a) the financial statements submitted to the members in accordance with rule 29(3)(b)(ii);

I can't determine what that could be referring to.

Mark Hurd (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2016 (AEDT)

Thanks for highlighting this - it appears to be an error made when the rule change was first made. I've looked back to the place where it was introduced and it didn't exist then either. The Model Rules have a reference in the same place to 30(4)(b)(ii), which is under AGMs (equiv of our Rule 9) and reads:
(b) to receive and consider—
(i) the annual report of the Committee on the activities of the Association during the preceding financial year; and
(ii) the financial statements of the Association for the preceding financial year submitted by the Committee in accordance with Part 7 of the Act;
In our Rules this seems to be split between 9(3)(b) and 9(3)(d). Due to notice periods in the legislation we will unfortunately have to wait till the AGM to take care of this. Andrew Owens (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2016 (AEST)
OK, so I have noted this should be a reference to 9(3)(d). Mark Hurd (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2016 (AEST)