Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

2009-12-21 Thread Nathan Carter
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
 But who is out there, and what sort of successes would they like to
 own? And what methods would be better than meetups for establishing a
 core of regular participants?

While meetups do fall under our Statement of Purpose (i.e. organise
and participate in educational and social events) we need to be
careful not to over-emphasise their importance. There seems to be some
sort of a perception that in order to be an active member you need to
participate in meetups, etc.

Member retention may be an issue and it will need to be explored, but
one of the issues may be that those who join don't feel as though they
are getting anything from it.

Regards,
Nathan.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l


Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

2009-12-21 Thread Nathan Carter
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Craig Franklin cr...@halo-17.net wrote:
 having GLAM-WIKI in Canberra rather than in Sydney or Melbourne was a good 
 move and defused
 any possible Sydney/Melbourne/Regional rivalry; it seems that we all see
 Canberra as “neutral ground” in that respect!

The reason that Canberra was selected for the GLAM-Wiki was because it
was a conference focused on cultural institutions and the major
cultural institutions are in Canberra.

Regards,
Nathan.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l


Re: [Wikimediaau-l] chapter governance

2009-12-21 Thread Nathan Carter
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
 I also recently asked on the WMAU wiki about how an
 'official chapter position' might be formed (on the ISP filtering stuff),
 and andrew responded that the official chapter position would be determined
 by the committee
I don't agree that the official position should be determined solely
by the committee, it needs to be done in consultation with members and
endorsed by the committee. When we made a submission for the
Australian Digital Future Directions inquiry we asked the members of
the organisation for their input and views. It is important for this
consultation to be done on issues such as this.

Regards,
Nathan.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l


Re: [Wikimediaau-l] chapter governance

2009-12-21 Thread Andrew
I should note I have been misquoted here - my exact wording, as can be seen
on the wiki, was has to be *resolved* by the committee. Determine means
make up. Resolve means to form a resolution or to decide. A decision
requires inputs - as we discovered in our first meeting over the weekend,
the more complete the information / picture the committee has, the better
the decision it can make. Public debate can and should take place on public
issues - indeed, it proceeded quite well last week in this location - and
can bring out points of view, links, documents, or outside information etc
that is useful to everybody. That all then serves as input to internal
discussions.

The purpose of my post at that time was to combat a perception I was getting
from some places that either consensus on the wiki or mailing list was a
suitable way to determine a chapter position. As several people have pointed
out, we're a non profit organisation dealing with outside entities and we're
expected to be responsible and to communicate clearly with one voice. That
one voice is the resolution mechanism.

That being said, a chapter position if one is developed doesn't bind any
member to the position that results - Adam got it about right in his closing
paragraph above. The key thing is that people don't say Wikimedia Australia
says blah when Wikimedia Australia has not passed a resolution and put it
on officialwiki to that effect. I cited the precedent of Phorm optout for
that. That is a Wikimedia Australia position - it's official, anyone can see
that, there is no debate on what WMAU's position is, even though members may
hold their own view and are perfectly free as individuals to advocate for
it.

cheers
Andrew


2009/12/21 Nathan Carter cartma...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  I also recently asked on the WMAU wiki about how an
  'official chapter position' might be formed (on the ISP filtering stuff),
  and andrew responded that the official chapter position would be
 determined
  by the committee
 I don't agree that the official position should be determined solely
 by the committee, it needs to be done in consultation with members and
 endorsed by the committee. When we made a submission for the
 Australian Digital Future Directions inquiry we asked the members of
 the organisation for their input and views. It is important for this
 consultation to be done on issues such as this.

 Regards,
 Nathan.

 ___
 Wikimediaau-l mailing list
 Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l