Talk:Wikimedia Australia/Draft Constitution

"To recruit non-technically minded people to contribute to Wikimedia projects, educating them on the use of MediaWiki software."

I'm unsure about this aim. Is there a need to specify "non-technically minded people"? Wouldn't recruiting technical people to work on the site also be useful? We could do with more developers far more than editors. Angela 13:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think this point is in the spirit that that Wikipedia's editor base is heavily skewed towards young men with a high level of technical and computer knowledge... think w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Recruiting developers specifically could be a very good task though, I think everyone would like to see some more. pfctdayelise 10:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EGMs[edit]

I think there needs to be a section in the General Meetings about calling an Extraordinary General Meeting - as in the case where a member of the committee has to stand down and a replacement needs to be elected, etc. It's not really different from the general idea of General Meetings mentioned earlier, but I think there needs to be some detail on how and why an EGM is called. Confusing Manifestation 14:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenure[edit]

The section on General Meetings states that at the AGM new committee members will be elected. Will the whole committee refresh itself every year, with old members having to stand again for their own seats, or will it only be those members who have stepped down / been impeached? I assume the latter, since otherwise there would be no need for impeachment. Either way, I think this needs to be spelled out more. Confusing Manifestation 11:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added new cl. 9 to cover this. People will serve AGM to AGM, and the terms will be essentially one year long, depending on the actual date of the AGM. We can change this if need be. --bainer (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July edits[edit]

I made these points on the mailing list as well, but I'm going to repeat them here for the record.

I'm not clear on what is being proposed as an alternative for some of the parts recently removed. It previously said "They have paid a membership fee, as specified by the committee" but "as specified by the committee" was struck out. If the committee (and I'm not at all convinced committee is the right word) is not specifying membership fees, who is? Of course, it's important the members have input into this sort of decision (and votes where necessary), but in the end, someone or some group needs to make a decision on what those fees are, and our constitution ought to make clear how that decision is to be made.

Another point: It originally said "Membership shall be open to every individual and legal entity". "Legal entity" was removed on the basis it could lead to vote stacking, but I would like to consider alternative levels of membership. Company membership does not need to confer voting rights. See the Foundation's bylaws for an example.

I'm very pleased that "Decisions made by the committee shall be made by consensus wherever possible" was added.

Angela 13:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals[edit]

I want to test consensus on the less contentious ammendments:

Modification of 2.4.
Modification of 2.6.
Addition of 2.7.
Addition of section "Structure".
Replacing "the organisation" with "Wikimedia Australia" in 2, 3, 3.1, 3.2, 10.1, 10.2, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21.
Modification of 22 with additions of 22.1 and 22.2.

-- Newhoggy 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To defend the right to create, use and share free content[edit]

It could also be worded "To defend the freedom to create, use and share free content". Activities that could be covered by this aim include:

Inform politicians about the impact of laws on free content.
Motivate opposition to the introduction laws that adversely affect the freedom to create, use and share free content.
Seek to change laws that adversely affect the freedom to create, use and share free content.
Act as an expert witness in court cases that involve the freedom to create, use and share free content.
Conduct research on how the freedom to create, use and share free content is of benefit to society.
Build awareness of technologies that by design or otherwise limit the freedom to create, use and share free content, so that they can be avoided.

-- Newhoggy 08:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on September/October 2007 suggested changes[edit]

While I don't disagree with the changes as written, I would ask whether the "qualified majority" of 75% should apply to all votes - specifically, in item 18 it currently reads that only a 2/3 majority is required to expel a member. Confusing Manifestation 04:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]