Wikimedia Australia/Meeting 4/Log

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A little later than planned... the meeting began at 21:12 (AEST) on July 16, 2006.

A summary is at Wikimedia Australia/Meeting 4/Summary.

[21:12] <Confusing> Ok then. First item - update on what structure will be best.
[21:12] <cartman02au> Sounds good, I need to get my lesson plans for tomorrow done. Unfortunately I do not recall Adobe Premiere so it will be interesting
[21:12] <enochlau> who was meant to be looking into structure?
[21:12] <Angela> I think I'm more confused about structures than I was in the last meeting.
[21:12] <cartman02au> I think the organisation group
[21:12] <cartman02au> what is confusing?
[21:12] <cartman02au> I am clearer on it actually!
[21:13] <Angela> Whether an association is the best structure or not.
[21:13] <cartman02au> And feel more directed
[21:13] <cartman02au> In Victoria No
[21:13] <Angela> Not if they disallow online meetings, no.
[21:13] <cartman02au> The really interesting part is that I have been advised by NSW that they allow it, only to be emailed by them later saying they do not know
[21:14] <enochlau> do we know of real life examples in australia that use online meetings?
[21:14] <enochlau> i'm not surprised, your average government department worker is not a lawyer
[21:14] <Angela> Not yet, but I've got a meeting in Brisbane next month and apparently there will be people there experienced in this, so I hope to get a lot of advice then.
[21:15] <enochlau> great
[21:15] <cartman02au> Experienced in operating these online
[21:15] <cartman02au> I am familiar with incorporated associations, the caveats seem to be operating online
[21:16] <cartman02au> I'm just digging up the email
[21:16] <cartman02au> It's on the mailing list
[21:17] <Confusing> If it turned out that online meetings were a no-no in NSW too, but, say, were ok in all the other states, would there be any advantages incorporating in any of them?
[21:17] <cartman02au> NSW has no problems but is concerned that the law states in person or by proxy, they are not 100% sure if in person would apply to a meeting held online
[21:17] <Angela> cartman02au: are you fairly decided that an incorporated association would be best now rather than a company?
[21:17] <cartman02au> Plenty, if it suits what we want to do
[21:17] <Angela> Cool.
[21:17] <cartman02au> Angela: I prefer a company personally, but as you said it may be too big to start with
[21:18] <cartman02au> Angela: Basically we should go with what fits now and change later
[21:18] <Werdna> cartman02au, also, where does the money for incorporating come from?
[21:19] <cartman02au> the foundation will give us a grant
[21:19] <enochlau> could we have a summary of what an incorporated association is on perhaps?
[21:19] <Angela> That's a good idea.
[21:19] <enochlau> just so the rest of us know what's going on
[21:19] <cartman02au> I will try to find a nice definition somewhere
[21:19] <enochlau> great thanks
[21:19] <cartman02au> no problems. I am not the best at explaining sometime
[21:20] <Confusing> I second that, preferably with a little explanation of the difference in associations in different states.
[21:20] <Angela> The next point on the agenda was "consensus decision making", which is something newhoggy has been pushing a lot for, but since he's not here, maybe we should postpone that.
[21:20] <Angela> is there anything to say about "general meetings over internet" other than what cartman02au already said?
[21:21] <cartman02au> The best way to think of it is like a small club - a group of people who come together to achieve a goal. They can not operate for the profit of their members (i.e. cant distribute earnings)
[21:21] <enochlau> is there a way to keep meetings orderly?
[21:21] <cartman02au> The advantage of it over something less formal is that the organisation is seperate from members
[21:21] <cartman02au> yes
[21:21] <enochlau> for < 10 people, it's ok
[21:21] <cartman02au> We have a chairperson who runs it
[21:21] <enochlau> but just look at #wkipedia-en
[21:21] <enochlau> hmm ok
[21:21] <cartman02au> We can +m (moderate)
[21:21] <Confusing> We could hold meetings in a moderated room, with chairperson giving voice to the person who "has the floor".
[21:22] <enochlau> sounds good
[21:22] <Confusing> Does that cover it for online meetings for now?
[21:22] <cartman02au> yep that is fine
[21:22] <Angela> Yes.
[21:22] <Confusing> Ok then - Branches.
[21:23] <cartman02au> We *need* online meetings
[21:23] <cartman02au> Branches should be informal at this stage, I dont even want to think about them on a national level
[21:23] <Angela> I think we don't have anywhere near enough people yet to have formal branches.
[21:23] <cartman02au> Sa,e
[21:23] <enochlau> yeah
[21:23] <cartman02au> Same rather
[21:23] <cartman02au> Imagine splitting up 20 people into branches
[21:23] <cartman02au> Wont work
[21:24] <Confusing> Same here. Maybe, if a branch reaches some critical mass, it can become its own entity, but definitely not yet.
[21:24] <enochlau> state-based meetings can continue as is, i.e. informall
[21:24] <enochlau> *informally
[21:24] <enochlau> without some state-based formal organisational structure
[21:24] <cartman02au> Exactly
[21:25] <Confusing> State-based meetings can be for a little in-person hashing out of ideas that can then be brought to online national meetings, so the state meetings can keep informal
[21:25] <cartman02au> Agreed
[21:25] <Confusing> That seems to be agreed upon, so to keep this moving quickly, next point - Finalisation of documents. Are we even close to being ready for this?
[21:25] <Angela> a lot of work has gone into the draft constitution recently, and it seems fairly stabilised now, with few changes in the last week - and
[21:26] <enochlau> they look pretty good, but i'd say let them mature like fine wine for a little while longer
[21:26] <enochlau> in case people still see problems
[21:26] <Angela> the mission statement has hardly been edited, so either everyone agrees with it, or no one knows about it :)
[21:27] <cartman02au> I think it is fairly static
[21:27] <cartman02au> (the mission statement)
[21:27] * Werdna doesn't know about it.
[21:27] <Confusing> I'd like to see the two documents worked together fairly soon though - I don't like having two versions of the one thing if the only differences are things that we can discuss fairly quickly.
[21:27] <cartman02au> Agreed
[21:28] <Angela> Yes.
[21:28] <enochlau> yep
[21:28] <Werdna> sounds reasonable.
[21:28] <Confusing> Mission statement looks fine, but as I said elsewhere once it all gets up and running we should have some way of keeping track of how we're actually achieving its goals.
[21:28] <cartman02au> I am agreeing more with the consensus idea now I understand it but we need to make sure it complies with legislation.
[21:28] <cartman02au> That is something the committee must do
[21:28] <Confusing> Can't argue with that.
[21:28] <cartman02au> Plus it is assessed in annual reports
[21:29] <enochlau> that is precisely my concern as well, and we need some opinion, legal or otherwise, somewhat soon
[21:29] <cartman02au> Basically the annual report would list the mission and how it was achieved
[21:29] <cartman02au> NSW Fair Trading has been useful up until now
[21:30] <cartman02au> They seem a little confused about internet meetings, they say as long as it is in the rules/constitution it's good then are worried about the definition of meeting in person
[21:30] <wm> I am fairly sure that the Greens NSW constitution mentions consensus decision making
[21:30] <cartman02au> The charity I was involved with used to be audited by a company called Minerva, they have lawyers maybe I could touch base with them
[21:30] <cartman02au> What form do they take?
[21:34] <enochlau> hmm lets move on
[21:34] <Werdna> yes.
[21:35] <Confusing> * Trademark agreement with Foundation
[21:35] <Confusing> Who knows about this?
[21:35] <cartman02au> Pretty hard to enter into a trademark agreement when there is no organisation to sign it
[21:35] <cartman02au> Who enters into the agreement with the foundation?
[21:35] <Werdna> yeah, the structure probably needs to be sorted out first.
[21:36] <cartman02au> yep
[21:36] <Angela> we can't really put it off until after we incorporate if we want to incorporate as "Wikimedia Australia"
[21:36] <cartman02au> Just remember once we have sorted structure and docs out it needs to be approved
[21:36] <enochlau> who do we ask?
[21:36] <cartman02au> technically we can
[21:36] <Angela> Unless we do what the UK chapter did and incorporate as something else.
[21:36] <cartman02au> there seems to be some issues with the trademarks
[21:36] <cartman02au> not needed I do not believe
[21:37] <cartman02au> Wikimedia Serbia and Monteregeo didnt have one before incorporation
[21:37] <enochlau> cartman02au: what is not needed?
[21:37] <enochlau> what name did they incorporate as?
[21:37] <cartman02au> Wikimedia Serbia... (when translated)
[21:37] <enochlau> and they did not seek any form of permission beforehand?
[21:38] <cartman02au> The problem is that the foundation's trademarks are not 100% recognised under the Madrid protocol so I have been told
[21:38] <cartman02au> they had permission just not formally
[21:38] <enochlau> let me run a check to see if they're registered in australia
[21:38] <enochlau> one second
[21:38] <Angela> It's looking like it would be best to incorporate as something else.
[21:38] <Werdna> I suppose we could get some sort of document from the foundation giving us permission to incorporate as WikiMedia Australia, and submit it when we incorporate.
[21:38] <Confusing> Does the Foundation have someone on its committee to handle trademark/legal matters?
[21:39] <Werdna> Confusing, Brad Patrick?
[21:39] <Angela> It has Brad as a full time employee.
[21:39] <cartman02au> Angela: I doubt Chapcom would have problems there
[21:39] <Confusing> Can we speak to him about this matter?
[21:39] <Angela> It clearly does have problems since it still doesn't recognise Wikimedia UK as an official chapter.
[21:39] <cartman02au> Angela: Either way we need board approval prior to becomming a chapter
[21:40] <cartman02au> Angela: Didn't UK not even bother to ask the board prior to incorporating
[21:40] <enochlau> "wikimedia" and "wikipedia" aren't in ipaustralia's database
[21:40] <enochlau> do you know the reasons why the UK guys aren't recognised as a chapter?
[21:40] <cartman02au> Angela: I dont think it is ideal for us to say hey incorporate under another name, I think for unity we should be Wikimedia Australia from the outset
[21:40] <cartman02au> It predates me
[21:40] <Werdna> We could just have a word with somebody on the board. I know jwales, at least, is fairly approachable.
[21:42] <Angela> Either the chapters committee can tell us we can incorporate as this name, or we just use another name and later trade as Wikimedia Australia
[21:42] <Werdna> Angela, sounds reasonable.
[21:42] <enochlau> the thing is, we'll need to ask one day, so we might as well ask now?
[21:42] <cartman02au> Discussions I have already had with ChapCom seem to be that Wikimedia Australia is fine
[21:43] <cartman02au> Remember ChapCom doesnt have executive authority
[21:43] <Werdna> cartman02au, Why wouldn't it be?
[21:43] <Angela> cartman02au: why do you think that?
[21:43] <cartman02au> Wikimedia is a trademark in the US
[21:43] <Confusing> I'd like to see something in writing, at least to make sure there are no problems in the future.
[21:43] <Angela> it does have authority -
[21:43] <Werdna> I highly doubt that WMF is going to sue for TM infringement, anyway. So what's the big deal?
[21:43] <cartman02au> Angela: Nothing can be signed off on without being sent to the board, essentially *every* Wikimedia committee is advisory only
[21:44] <enochlau> i think even if we are not legally obliged to obtain permission, it'd be nice to
[21:44] <Angela> Werdna: there's no guarantee of that.
[21:44] <enochlau> i dont want to be on a wrong footing with the board from the outset
[21:44] <cartman02au> Angela: Do toy not recall the debate raised by our legal people that we cant delegate or something
[21:44] <Werdna> Angela, you really expect the foundation to sue over trademarks?
[21:44] <cartman02au> That is why we work with the foundation
[21:44] <cartman02au> We are a chapter of Wikimedia, we should have a relationship
[21:44] <Werdna> I would bet a large portion of my belongings on them not doing so without first asking us to disband.
[21:45] <enochlau> werdna: why do you think the foundation got the trademarks to start with? to enforce them legally
[21:45] <Angela> The board won't do anything unless it's gone through the chapters committee first, so it's really up to cartman02au to make that committee agree to it since he's the only one here with access to their private mailing lists etc.
[21:45] <Werdna> WMF is on a low budget. Sue first, ask questions later doesn't sound right.
[21:45] <enochlau> still, going through the appropriate channels, if possible, is the better way to do it
[21:45] <Werdna> true.
[21:45] <cartman02au> Angela: that is right, we advise the board but do not say this is what is happening
[21:45] <cartman02au> Angela: We dont have executive power
[21:46] <Angela> so, can you get your committee to ok us incorporating as Wikimedia Australia?
[21:46] <cartman02au> So long as our founding documents are fine yes
[21:46] <enochlau> i see
[21:46] <cartman02au> They have to conform to the requirements
[21:46] <enochlau> so that needs to be finalised soon
[21:46] <enochlau> requirements?
[21:46] <Werdna> I'm not saying that not getting approval is the way to go. I'm saying that once we have approval, there's no need to worry about the semantics of how to make sure we're legally protected the whole time/
[21:46] <cartman02au> Basically make sure that we are not trying to appear to be a legal arm of the foundation and that we share their aims
[21:47] <enochlau> right, shouldnt be hard
[21:47] <cartman02au> Not every chapter has a trademark agreement
[21:47] <cartman02au> It isnt
[21:47] <Angela> are these requirements still unpublished?
[21:47] <cartman02au> I don't think they are widely known
[21:48] <enochlau> they're not on a meta page or somewhere? :S
[21:48] <cartman02au> I believe they are stated on the meta chapters page
[21:48] <enochlau> rite
[21:48] <cartman02au> But not explicity as to become a chapter you must....
[21:48] <cartman02au> That is the problem, the chapter page on meta is out of date in a big way
[21:49] <Angela> cartman02au: is it possible for you to find the requirements and report back to us on what they are so we can make sure the draft documents meet there?
[21:50] <cartman02au>
[21:51] <Confusing> OK, I think that covers what we need to know about our association with WMF. Anything more?
[21:51] <cartman02au> No problem with that, it is pretty much what I already said, I just cant recall where on meta it is
[21:51] <cartman02au> I remember them from when I proposed the idea of WMA
[21:52] <enochlau> hmm perhaps it needs to be rewritten to be more explicit and made more widely known
[21:52] <cartman02au> I agree
[21:52] <cartman02au> The Chapters FAQ is to be rewritten
[21:52] <Werdna> Guys, I have to go
[21:52] <Werdna> I'll read the log when I get back
[21:52] <cartman02au> bye
[21:52] <Confusing> bye Werdna
[21:53] <enochlau> bye
[21:53] <Confusing> Given that we're losing people now, let's see if we can wrap up the next few points fairly quickly, yes?
[21:53] <Angela> yes. the next agenda point is "Planned incorporation date"... maybe it's too early to say?
[21:53] <cartman02au> Our largest problem is that we are treading on new ground :(
[21:53] <Confusing> Too early, but can we pick a month to aim for?
[21:53] <cartman02au> I would of liked to have said late August - not going to happen
[21:54] <cartman02au> I feel we are stuck in a rut at the moment :(
[21:54] <Confusing> Can we do it by October?
[21:54] <Angela> Yes, I'm guessing October would be more realistic.
[21:54] <enochlau> sounds like a good time
[21:54] <cartman02au> My vision was that we be running by software freedom day :(
[21:54] <cartman02au> October is more realistic
[21:54] <enochlau> although i'd say there's no need to rush it
[21:54] <cartman02au> true
[21:54] <Confusing> October is our target then.
[21:55] <Angela> I don't think anything's been done yet about membership procedures and election procedures, but we should start drafting something for this on the wiki soon.
[21:55] <cartman02au> If we take our time it will be done properly
[21:55] <cartman02au> I am confused about membership. I asked if we should have levels of membership but I received no reply lol
[21:57] <enochlau> wasn't there some discussion on non-voting members and the like?
[21:57] <cartman02au> yeah but that wasnt what i wanted to know - mainly about founding/normal members
[21:57] <enochlau> founding members? :S do we really need to be placed on a pedastal?
[21:57] <cartman02au> probably not
[21:58] <Angela> I don't think there needs to be a different between them.
[21:58] <cartman02au> alright that is sorted then
[21:58] <Confusing> I think it would be nice to have something documenting who the founding members are, but no special treatment besides that.
[21:58] <Confusing> Election procedure? Anything we haven't already covered?
[21:58] <cartman02au> there wasnt any special treatment
[21:58] <cartman02au> By consensus or 3/4
[21:59] <cartman02au> election would be the same as a normal motion
[21:59] <Angela> We need to work out who can vote.
[21:59] <Angela> I guess it depends if we need the board before we have members.
[21:59] <cartman02au> I say ordinary members
[21:59] <Angela> The UK one appointed a temporary board before they incorporated, and members will later elect the real board.
[22:00] <cartman02au> Corporate members I am unsure and Junior members (minors) cant vote by law
[22:00] <cartman02au> That is fine, there could be a board now. At present we could be considered an unincorporated association
[22:00] <Angela> I don't see any reason to let corporate members (if we have those) vote.
[22:00] <enochlau> what are corporate members? and why would have them?
[22:00] <cartman02au> I'd like to have corporate members, but have reservations about allowing them to vote
[22:00] <enochlau> i don't see why we need to have them, sponsorship packages should suffice>
[22:00] <Angela> Basically, companies who want to give us money in order to say they're members.
[22:00] <cartman02au> Having corporate members would make it easier for organisations to donate to us
[22:01] <Angela> Perhaps we should see what's normal in other associations. I don't know how common it is to have corporate members.
[22:01] <cartman02au> It isnt unusual, depending on the organisation
[22:02] <cartman02au> My idea was that it should get around having to have a fundraising licence. Members can give the organisation money without us "soliciting from the public"
[22:02] <cartman02au> If we decide to get a fundraising licence form the outset we might as well be a company, both need auditing
[22:02] <enochlau> not really, i mean, can't we get sponsorship even if we're not a charity?
[22:03] <Angela> Even if we could, it might be harder to get.
[22:03] <cartman02au> yes and no
[22:04] <cartman02au> A fundraising licence is required if we are asking for money for a charitable purpose
[22:04] <cartman02au> We may be seen as a charitable purpose (advancement of education) whether or not we are a charity
[22:05] <cartman02au> What we need to do is arrange for the organisation group to meet
[22:05] <enochlau> do companies get tax deductions for donations? if so, wouldnt it be more attractive to them to donate, instead of joining as a member?
[22:05] <cartman02au> Perhaps
[22:06] <cartman02au> They get tax deducations if we do it right
[22:06] <enochlau> anyway, this topic needs [citation needed]s... no point hypothesising
[22:07] <Angela> One question I added to the agenda was do we need a separate wiki or is Meta still ok?
[22:07] <Angela> I noticed the New Zealand chapter had a separate wiki, and I was going to say it's fairly inactive, but I just noticed it's now being vandalised by a WoW clone -
[22:07] <cartman02au> As I said we are trading new ground in some areas in Australia
[22:08] <Confusing> Meta's fine for now.
[22:08] <enochlau> meta is fine
[22:09] <Angela> The only point left was dates for the next meetings.
[22:09] <cartman02au> 4 weeks maximum for this sort of meeting
[22:09] <Angela> I guess this subcomittee should decide on the date of the education meeting:
[22:10] <cartman02au> ASAP :P
[22:10] <enochlau> should we have another general meeting in a shorter time frame as usual? i.e. next wk or in 2 wk's time?
[22:10] <cartman02au> I have more of an insight into that soon
[22:10] <enochlau> seeing as a lot of people didnt show up
[22:10] <cartman02au> perhaps
[22:10] <Angela> Ok.
[22:10] <Confusing> I think we need the OrgGroup to meet before the next GM
[22:10] <cartman02au> agreed
[22:11] <cartman02au> the OrgGroup needs to do something
[22:11] <enochlau> or at least write nice summaries on the wiki
[22:11] <cartman02au> The previous effort was pathetic to say the least
[22:11] <enochlau> tables outlining pros and cons of the various approaches we've seen
[22:11] <Angela> Agreed.
[22:11] <Confusing> So, let's say someone on the OrgGroup calls for a meeting either next week or the week after, and I will do the same for the Education Committee.
[22:11] * cartman02au is being harsh
[22:11] <Confusing> Then hold the next GM a week or two after those.
[22:11] <enochlau> ok
[22:11] <cartman02au> agreed
[22:11] <enochlau> we'll work these out on the mailing list
[22:11] <cartman02au> I guess we hold the next meeting on a date TBA
[22:12] <cartman02au> orgnaising dates on meta seems to work well :)
[22:13] <Confusing> Well, if there's nothing more to say on that matter, we can declare the meeting closed.