Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Minutes of committee meetings and other queries
Do we have a secretary now that you can hand it into.please. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Tony Souter wrote: > Dear Andrew > > I am still a member because there was legally no secretary to receive my > written resignation, as you correctly point out is required by Rule 6(1). > > Let's fast reverse for a moment: Charles resigned in writing as > secretary several days *after* Graham was, somehow, appointed to the > position, presumably using the casual vacancy rule—but there was no > vacancy, so the appointment was invalid. I pointed out the problems at the > time and was ignored—the fact that I was ignored is quite explicit in the > minutes of the meeting during which everyone decided to appoint themselves > into different office-bearing positions. > > > http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Meeting:Committee_(2013-03-17)#Committee_reshuffle > > While we're on this matter, "*Action:* Steven agreed to write up a formal > re-shuffle motion, as per the email." – I see no evidence in subsequent > minutes of such a a formal "re-shuffle motion". > > It's as simple as that. > > You say: "the committee will not be responding to your correspondence > dated 25 January 2014"; but you *have* responded. The failure to address > my specific points might prompt members to wonder about several critical > issues. Forgive me for being old-fashioned, but I'm rather fussy about > adherence to rules and laws. > > Kind regards > > Tony > > > > On 25/01/2014, at 8:11 PM, Andrew Owens wrote: > > Dear Tony, > > On 1 October 2013, you resigned your membership per Rule 6(1) of the > Association in writing, via a post to the chapter's lists. It is also on > record that this resignation was accepted at the time. As such, you are not > a member under the chapter's rules. > > As a consequence, the committee will not be responding to your > correspondence dated 25 January 2014, and notes only that it contains > several misunderstandings and errors of fact, some of which can be easily > corrected with material already on the record, including reports submitted > to the last AGM and the full text of the Associations Incorporation Reform > Act 2012. > > Regards > > Andrew Owens > Secretary > Wikimedia Australia > > > On 25 January 2014 13:17, Tony Souter wrote: > >> Dear members >> >> Since under the chapter's rules I'm still a member of WMAU until 30 >> June—at which time no membership will be revewable for anyone under the >> rules, I'm sorry to say—may I ask whether the minutes of today's >> "committee" meeting will be posted promptly, unlike last time? >> >> Looking at the minutes of the most recent meeting (by the way, pretty >> short on links for members to navigate to referents), I see 12 red "ACTION" >> statements; only one of them is followed by a note that the action was >> taken: >> >> ACTION: Steven to advise Adam. >> (*Update: Actioned 25 November - committee members CC'd on email.*) >> Although it doesn't say whether the action succeeded in terms of the >> resolution. >> >> >> A sample of the other 11 is below, together with a few other queries. >> >> __ >> >> *ACTION: All to update COI register. >> >> Nope: >> >> >> http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Conflict_of_interest_policy&action=history >> >> __ >> >> *Update of records with CAV and the ACNC >> >>- Steven advised that everyone had sent through the necessary >>details. Email issues have hampered the ACNC matter; Steven is sending >>Andrew the form via express post. >>- The rule changes have not been sent to CAV from the SGM. If it goes >>beyond 26 November, the lodgment fee increases from $75.20 to $160.50. >>- ACTION: Steven to email Andrew the form; Andrew to file it with CAV >>on Tuesday. >> >> >> Even if the rule changes were sent to CAV by 26 November, saving the >> chapter half the fee, it ignores the fact that the law (not the rules, the >> law) was breached by not communicating the change within a month of the SGM >> that approved the changes. I believe there's a fine for that breach, but >> would need to check the Act to confirm this. >> >> __ >> >> *A7 Past resolutions >> >>- ACTION: Andrew to sort out past resolutions for posting to the >>public wiki. >> >> >> This cake looks worryingly half-baked: >> >> "(add 2013-14, note out of date (will fill this in over coming week)" >> >> http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&action=history >> >> >> __ >> >> **C4 Linkage project * >> >> "there are questions as to its fit with our Statement of Purpose"—I don't >> see an argument anywhere supporting this claim. Like the CAV's answers to >> questions by one committee member about compliance, the answers depend on >> how those questions are framed. Presumably the previous committee thought >> the project fit with the SoP. >> >> "The current spending is authorised by a resolution of the previous >> committee, but we have the option to rescind this."
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Meeting today..?
Hi there, It could fall under our Wikimedia Australia meetups program ( http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal:Wikimedia_Australia_Meetups#Budget) which provides up to $150 for a meet up. Of course, this is intended to cover food/drink/venue if required, but I don't see why not (just don't buy hundreds of dollars of scotch, now!) Melbourne meet up did have some folk attend, I couldn't make it (my car had a flat battery so I couldn't leave home) but I hope next time around, we will have a bigger attendance. Steve On 24 January 2014 13:39, Peter Musings wrote: > Hi all, > > Is it possible to apply to the chapter to spend some money buying drinks > at a meetup? I'm happy to write reams on the benefits to the project in > return for a few beers ;-) > > best, > > Peter. > > ps. Did the Mebourne meetup happen, Steve? - it didn't seem like anyone > could make it - I guess a solo meetup is just an 'up' without the meet, > right? > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Steve Zhang < > steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au> wrote: > >> The problem I'm having with the January log is my IRC client reads the >> logs it creates perfectly fine, but attempting to open it in a text editor >> shows absolute jibbsrish. I'm sure I'll be able to fix this shortly. >> >> If anyone is interested in doing a meetup in sydney id highly encourage >> it...would be good to have some meetups happening again :) >> >> Steve >> On 23/01/2014 1:05 PM, "Peter Musings" wrote: >> >>> No worries Steve - there's sometimes a lot to keep up to speed with :-) >>> >>> If you guys need a hand making the log human readable, maybe just whack >>> it on the wiki somewhere as a draft, and I can lend a hand tidying it up as >>> I give it a read >>> >>> either ways, if poss. do try and flick a note to the list just letting >>> folk know messages are getting through >>> >>> oh, and if anyone in Sydney has time or energy to organise something; >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney >>> >>> best, >>> >>> Peter, >>> PM. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Steve Zhang < >>> steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au> wrote: >>> Sorry for the delay Peter. We have found a log from December and I will be posting it today. Log for Jan will follow shortly, as will the minutes from the December meeting. Steve On 23/01/2014 11:02 AM, "Peter Musings" wrote: > anyone? > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhiCFdWeQfA > > (could anyone receiving this just flick me a quick hello to confirm > that the problem isn't the nut behind the keyboard this end...) > > best, > > Peter. > PM. > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Peter Musings < > thepmacco...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ping :-) >> >> Just wondering if I sent this ok? >> >> best, >> >> Peter, >> PM. >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Peter Musings < >> thepmacco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> hi folks, >>> >>> any news on minutes and the IRC log? >>> >>> best, >>> >>> Peter. >>> PM. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Steven Zhang wrote: >>> Hi John, The minutes of the previous committee meeting are still forthcoming, and as Andrew has previously mentioned he has been unwell. We have not had our committee meeting this month to accept the minutes from the December meeting. Once this is done, they will be posted to the public wiki as is customary. I had a log of the meeting but it seems my IRC client creates it in a way so that converting it to text is impossible. I believe others may have a log and once I locate this it will be posted. Thanks for your patience. Steven Zhang On 12 Jan 2014, at 4:58 pm, John Vandenberg wrote: They havent been posted Steven. :( On Jan 12, 2014 9:27 AM, "Steve Zhang" < steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au> wrote: Hi John, I believe the minutes are in the process of being finalized today and we have a copy of the irc log to post. It will be going ahead as planned today at 4pm AEDST. Steve On 12/01/2014 1:15 PM, "John Vandenberg" wrote: > There are at least two items the committee should be attending to > before the meeting today. > > The IRC log from the last public meeting should be published. > > The minutes from the last committee meeting should be published. > > fwiw, I am an apology for the meeting today, due to a prior > commitment > of being facilitator at a Wikidata workshop being here in Jakarta. > > -- > John Vandenberg > >
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Minutes of committee meetings and other queries
Dear Andrew I am still a member because there was legally no secretary to receive my written resignation, as you correctly point out is required by Rule 6(1). Let's fast reverse for a moment: Charles resigned in writing as secretary several days after Graham was, somehow, appointed to the position, presumably using the casual vacancy rule—but there was no vacancy, so the appointment was invalid. I pointed out the problems at the time and was ignored—the fact that I was ignored is quite explicit in the minutes of the meeting during which everyone decided to appoint themselves into different office-bearing positions. http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Meeting:Committee_(2013-03-17)#Committee_reshuffle While we're on this matter, "Action: Steven agreed to write up a formal re-shuffle motion, as per the email." – I see no evidence in subsequent minutes of such a a formal "re-shuffle motion". It's as simple as that. You say: "the committee will not be responding to your correspondence dated 25 January 2014"; but you have responded. The failure to address my specific points might prompt members to wonder about several critical issues. Forgive me for being old-fashioned, but I'm rather fussy about adherence to rules and laws. Kind regards Tony On 25/01/2014, at 8:11 PM, Andrew Owens wrote: > Dear Tony, > > On 1 October 2013, you resigned your membership per Rule 6(1) of the > Association in writing, via a post to the chapter's lists. It is also on > record that this resignation was accepted at the time. As such, you are not a > member under the chapter's rules. > > As a consequence, the committee will not be responding to your correspondence > dated 25 January 2014, and notes only that it contains several > misunderstandings and errors of fact, some of which can be easily corrected > with material already on the record, including reports submitted to the last > AGM and the full text of the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012. > > Regards > > Andrew Owens > Secretary > Wikimedia Australia > > > On 25 January 2014 13:17, Tony Souter wrote: > Dear members > > Since under the chapter's rules I'm still a member of WMAU until 30 June—at > which time no membership will be revewable for anyone under the rules, I'm > sorry to say—may I ask whether the minutes of today's "committee" meeting > will be posted promptly, unlike last time? > > Looking at the minutes of the most recent meeting (by the way, pretty short > on links for members to navigate to referents), I see 12 red "ACTION" > statements; only one of them is followed by a note that the action was taken: > > ACTION: Steven to advise Adam. > (Update: Actioned 25 November - committee members CC'd on email.) Although it > doesn't say whether the action succeeded in terms of the resolution. > > > A sample of the other 11 is below, together with a few other queries. > > __ > > *ACTION: All to update COI register. > > Nope: > > http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Conflict_of_interest_policy&action=history > > __ > > *Update of records with CAV and the ACNC > Steven advised that everyone had sent through the necessary details. Email > issues have hampered the ACNC matter; Steven is sending Andrew the form via > express post. > The rule changes have not been sent to CAV from the SGM. If it goes beyond 26 > November, the lodgment fee increases from $75.20 to $160.50. > ACTION: Steven to email Andrew the form; Andrew to file it with CAV on > Tuesday. > > Even if the rule changes were sent to CAV by 26 November, saving the chapter > half the fee, it ignores the fact that the law (not the rules, the law) was > breached by not communicating the change within a month of the SGM that > approved the changes. I believe there's a fine for that breach, but would > need to check the Act to confirm this. > > __ > > *A7 Past resolutions > ACTION: Andrew to sort out past resolutions for posting to the public wiki. > > This cake looks worryingly half-baked: > > "(add 2013-14, note out of date (will fill this in over coming week)" > > http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&action=history > > > __ > > *C4 Linkage project > "there are questions as to its fit with our Statement of Purpose"—I don't see > an argument anywhere supporting this claim. Like the CAV's answers to > questions by one committee member about compliance, the answers depend on how > those questions are framed. Presumably the previous committee thought the > project fit with the SoP. > > "The current spending is authorised by a resolution of the previous > committee, but we have the option to rescind this." But one of the problems > in squibbing on this funding is that the chapter signed a contract with the > other parties. Why sign a binding contract if you're going to flush it down > the pan in the hope you won't be sued, even if suing is unlikely? It's
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Minutes of committee meetings and other queries
Dear Tony, On 1 October 2013, you resigned your membership per Rule 6(1) of the Association in writing, via a post to the chapter's lists. It is also on record that this resignation was accepted at the time. As such, you are not a member under the chapter's rules. As a consequence, the committee will not be responding to your correspondence dated 25 January 2014, and notes only that it contains several misunderstandings and errors of fact, some of which can be easily corrected with material already on the record, including reports submitted to the last AGM and the full text of the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012. Regards Andrew Owens Secretary Wikimedia Australia On 25 January 2014 13:17, Tony Souter wrote: > Dear members > > Since under the chapter's rules I'm still a member of WMAU until 30 > June—at which time no membership will be revewable for anyone under the > rules, I'm sorry to say—may I ask whether the minutes of today's > "committee" meeting will be posted promptly, unlike last time? > > Looking at the minutes of the most recent meeting (by the way, pretty > short on links for members to navigate to referents), I see 12 red "ACTION" > statements; only one of them is followed by a note that the action was > taken: > > ACTION: Steven to advise Adam. > (*Update: Actioned 25 November - committee members CC'd on email.*) > Although it doesn't say whether the action succeeded in terms of the > resolution. > > > A sample of the other 11 is below, together with a few other queries. > > __ > > *ACTION: All to update COI register. > > Nope: > > > http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Conflict_of_interest_policy&action=history > > __ > > *Update of records with CAV and the ACNC > >- Steven advised that everyone had sent through the necessary details. >Email issues have hampered the ACNC matter; Steven is sending Andrew the >form via express post. >- The rule changes have not been sent to CAV from the SGM. If it goes >beyond 26 November, the lodgment fee increases from $75.20 to $160.50. >- ACTION: Steven to email Andrew the form; Andrew to file it with CAV >on Tuesday. > > > Even if the rule changes were sent to CAV by 26 November, saving the > chapter half the fee, it ignores the fact that the law (not the rules, the > law) was breached by not communicating the change within a month of the SGM > that approved the changes. I believe there's a fine for that breach, but > would need to check the Act to confirm this. > > __ > > *A7 Past resolutions > >- ACTION: Andrew to sort out past resolutions for posting to the >public wiki. > > > This cake looks worryingly half-baked: > > "(add 2013-14, note out of date (will fill this in over coming week)" > > http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&action=history > > > __ > > **C4 Linkage project * > > "there are questions as to its fit with our Statement of Purpose"—I don't > see an argument anywhere supporting this claim. Like the CAV's answers to > questions by one committee member about compliance, the answers depend on > how those questions are framed. Presumably the previous committee thought > the project fit with the SoP. > > "The current spending is authorised by a resolution of the previous > committee, but we have the option to rescind this." But one of the problems > in squibbing on this funding is that the chapter signed a *contract* with > the other parties. Why sign a binding contract if you're going to flush it > down the pan in the hope you won't be sued, even if suing is unlikely? It's > a pretty bad smell for the chapter's reputation at the very least. > Who (including the WMF) would sign a contract with WMAU after that? > This sits oddly with a generally loose approach to spending, without clear > signs of improving the performance of the chapter: > > I see proposals to move from a free email system to one that costs $50 a > year per person ($50? really?), and that the discourse on the site is so > sensitive that a much more expensive non-shared option is being considered. > Since the site remains a ghost town, I can't see the purpose in bumping up > expenditure on it by one cent. > > Even snail-mail looks like incurring more costs (redirect fee, etc). May I > ask why a mail box is used in the first place? If someone has to have the > key to it, why not mail to their home to save costs and expedite > communication? It's very unsuitable in a huge continent to assign one > location for a paid mailbox. > > May I ask why nearly a thousand dollars was set aside in the August > meeting for some online course "experiment" in ... what ... company board > membership skills? Really? I thought the election would have sorted out who > was competent to serve on the committee. > > And is the Committee pursuing the idea of spending the grand some of > $5,000 each quarter to ferry to, and accommodate and feed the committee, in > a differe
