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.
*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
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"(add 2013-14, note out of date (will fill this in over coming week)"
*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
different location in Australia? For the Sydney meeting last year, only one
member turned up. How is that "Fit to Purpose" or value for money?
Minutes of previous meeting:
"It was noted that most present were not at the meeting, but that as Graham had
prepared the minutes and Craig had agreed to them, an overall majority of the
previous committee could be judged in favour."
I'm not sure that's a logical assumption.
Two red links for September and Octover reports. Where are they?
"The World War I event proceeded, but nobody on the committee was present, so a
report will be sought from the organiser for the next meeting."
No ACTION statement, so I can't imagine anything's been done on that one.
Just sayin', members.
Wikimediaau-l mailing list