Wikimedia Australia/Meeting 9/Log

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Meeting 9 was held to discuss amendments to the draft rules, including the Statement of Aims.

[21:01] <Mike42> just ticked over 9:00 for me.
[21:01] <zero1328> Right, is everyone here?
[21:01] <Angela> I'll put up a log for anyone who's not
[21:01] * Mike42 doesn't see nathan
[21:02] <Bduke> Suggest a roll call of who is here and awake
[21:02] * pfctdayelise is here
[21:02] <Giggy> pfctdayelise: Sup
[21:02] <pfctdayelise> Giggy: coughing
[21:03] <Giggy> (ironically, that makes me here too)
[21:03] <Riana> I need to eat dinner, but yeah
[21:03] * Riana is now known as Riana|Away
[21:04] * Enoch_Lau is now known as enochlau
[21:05] <Bduke> the document we have to discuss is now at Wikimedia Australia/Draft Rules for Wikimedia Australia Inc
[21:06] <Bduke> I suggest appendix 5 first as that is where we left it last time, followed by the rule suggestions that have come in from Alan Davidson
[21:06] <jayvdb> sounds good.
[21:07] <Mike42> yep
[21:07] <Peripitus_> Is there a reason - in the doc - that the statement of aims is not #2 just under the definition ?
[21:08] <enochlau> because aims are not merely a definition
[21:08] <jayvdb> for reference, the Swedish bylaw used as a basis of our option for consideration is found here:
[21:08] <enochlau> definitions exist in legal documents to clarify the meaning of certain words. aims go much furthe
[21:08] <jayvdb> Wikimedia_Sverige/Bylaws#§1 The association's name and purpose
[21:08] <Angela> currently the aims partly include a definition ('Wikimedia Australia Inc. is a non-profit association based in Australia') which I don't think is needed there
[21:09] <Giggy> Agree with Angela'
[21:09] <Bduke> Peripitus.Aims are generally separate from the rules and are not directly mentioned in the model rules. I think it talks of us submitting a statement of aims and the rules
[21:10] <Bduke> Last time there was some support for something like the briefer swedish document of aims. I have put two alternatives in the document
[21:10] <enochlau> yes you need a statement of aims separately -
[21:11] <enochlau> I like either version of the shorter statement of aims. I think aims should always be more general and less prescriptive.
[21:11] <jayvdb> I agree on the removal of "independent of political parties and religious affiliations", as I think that may end up being twisted to interfere with attempts to work closely with religious groups or political party
[21:12] <Angela> I also prefer the shorter version, but maybe they are too brief now. One aim is to bring together Wikimedians in Australia and I don't think that point is covered yet. It's especially relevant to organising events, or conferences, etc, but also to smaller things like meetups.
[21:12] <Peripitus_> Enochlau - gocha... like the shorter Version at the bottom
[21:13] <Bduke> jayvdb. It is in the Swedish rulkes because they have lots of associations that are based on religion or political party so they have to make clear they are not
[21:13] <enochlau> i see. i dont think we need that bit then
[21:14] <enochlau> How about: Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent organisation that shall work towards...
[21:14] <enochlau> a) includes "independent" b) leaves out the definition-like things
[21:14] <pfctdayelise> + support
[21:14] <jayvdb> Bduke: ok. I dont mind having it there, but it doesnt seem necessary for us.
[21:15] <Bduke> an independent non-profit organisation that shall work towards... (add non-profit)
[21:15] <jayvdb> independent is a good word to add in there. mentioning specifically which groups we are independent could cause more problems than it solves.
[21:15] <Bduke> agree
[21:16] <enochlau> I dont mind "non-profit" there but it's redundant
[21:17] <Bduke> I suggest per Angela adding "the association wi;ll bring together Wikimedians in Australia for organising events, or conferences, and other meetings.
[21:18] <Michael_B> agree
[21:18] <Angela> not only in Australia if the chapter will be helping to organise Wikimania.
[21:19] <Bduke> Enoch: Non-profit. I do not think Nathan would agree with you. He things we should say it all the time to keep the ATO on side
[21:19] <Angela> or does the 'in Australia' mean where the event is, not where the people are coming from?
[21:19] <Bduke> Angela: Australian Wikmedians rather than Wikimedians in Australia?
[21:19] <Peripitus_> Wouldn't that need a def of wikimedians ? -
[21:20] <jayvdb> Im not keen on the word Wikimedians being in there.
[21:20] <enochlau> better wording: The association shall work to unite people who are interested in these aims to organise events, conferences and other meetings.
[21:20] <Angela> Bduke: no, my point is that if the chapter organises Wikimania in Australia, then you're bringing together non-Australian Wikimedians too
[21:20] <Angela> enochlau: I like that
[21:20] <enochlau> no, i dont like Wikimedians either. bduke: ok, that's fine
[21:20] <jayvdb> it needs to be simple, something we can easily use when discussing the aim of the chapter to people unfamilar with the foundation and the projects
[21:21] <enochlau> i'd just say leave out any reference to australia
[21:21] <Bduke> OK. I agree - not mention wikimedians
[21:21] <enochlau> in the organising events thing
[21:21] <enochlau> if we were invited to lend our hand to organising a wikimania in NZ say, then i'd say we should do that too
[21:22] <jayvdb> enochlau: yea. or any Oceania country for that matter.
[21:23] <Michael_B> I agree no mention of wikimedians or restricting it to australian events/people
[21:23] <jayvdb> if we have the resources to help, it should be within our scope to assist, or sponsor Australians to attend.
[21:24] <Bduke> Ok, it is not easy to draft something on IRC. Could I suggest we adopt the 3rd suggestion (the swedish one with no politics or religion) and ask Angela to add another sentence about meetings etc reflecting the discussion
[21:24] <Michael_B> I think that would work
[21:24] <enochlau> Yes
[21:24] <jayvdb> agreed
[21:25] <Bduke> Re Oceania - the aims do not really restrict us, only guide
[21:26] <enochlau> shall we move onto the next section?
[21:27] <Bduke> Angela - can you do what I suggested?
[21:27] <Angela> yes
[21:27] <Michael_B> section 36 was the other one I think we neede to look at
[21:27] <Michael_B> about the books
[21:28] <Bduke> there are new suggestions in 9. 10, 20, 25. 29 and 35 - marked in blue - all from Alan Davidson. Should I say who Alan is?
[21:28] <enochlau> hmm yes. did we get clarification as to what scope this section has? i think the issue from last meeting was - are member lists included?
[21:28] <enochlau> bduke: sure
[21:29] <Bduke> Let us stick to 36 for now. Ill talk about Alan later
[21:29] <enochlau> ok...
[21:30] <Michael_B> alright then
[21:30] <Michael_B> do we know if we're allowed to keep member details confidential?
[21:30] <Bduke> Member lists - yes - there is no way in my opinion that the Registrar will allow these to be not open, but I doubt that mebers of any association demand that right very often
[21:31] <enochlau> there's a difference between allowing people to see who's a member (fair enough) and the personal details of members though...
[21:32] <jayvdb> I think we need to clarify what details are on the (effectively) publicly accessible member list
[21:32] <Michael_B> I agree
[21:33] <enochlau> yes indeed. let's jot that down as something that needs to be done.
[21:34] <Angela> I've rewritten a bit more than the part about meetings. Does this look ok - now the 2nd example on Wikimedia Australia/Draft Rules for Wikimedia Australia Inc#Appendices
[21:34] <Bduke> 36 is straight from the medel rules. One matter that has to be included in any rules is "The maintenance and inspection of the register of members" I think that means that what is available to the Secretary to work from is available to members if they specifically ask for it.
[21:35] <enochlau> one more change to aims: "interested in *fulfilling* these aims" - it sounds a bit strange otherwise
[21:35] <jayvdb> looks good Angela
[21:35] <enochlau> i understand that 36 is from the model rules, but i believe we need clarification so we know operationally what needs to be done
[21:36] <Mike42> Angela: We may need to define what freely licensed content is
[21:36] <jayvdb> to get straight to the point, I would be concerned if my real world address is available to any member.
[21:36] <Bduke> Do we have to delay the rules on this point. Could I enquire while the rules are being looked at by the Foundation
[21:37] <enochlau> Bduke: since it's in the model rules, i'm satisfied by its existence, so yes, please enquire concurrently with approval
[21:37] <Angela> Mike42: maybe, but does it need to be in the aims? The Wikimedia Foundation officially adopted the definition at so I'd expect we don't need to define it for ourselves
[21:37] <enochlau> how about "free content"?
[21:37] <enochlau> simpler
[21:38] <Angela> "free content" is too often confused with free of charge
[21:38] <pfctdayelise> Free Content :)
[21:38] <pfctdayelise> freely licensed works
[21:38] <enochlau> Free Content (TM)
[21:38] <Bduke> I doubt that the registrar will accept a URL link in the document - web pages can change
[21:38] <enochlau> we could define free content in the definitions section
[21:39] <jayvdb> Bduke: im ok with the issue to do with the member list being put to a side. if we cant tweak the wording, we can be rather careful about who we admit as members
[21:40] <Angela> I don't think can be summarised enough to fit in the rules. Does it need to be defined there?
[21:40] <jayvdb> free content can be adequately described as "accessible and reusable"
[21:41] <enochlau> from the previous website: "freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose"
[21:41] <pfctdayelise> why does it matter so much, for just the aims?
[21:41] <Bduke> So are we leaving 36 as is and I will ask Consumer Affairs while the matter is with the Foundation?
[21:41] <enochlau> bduke: sure
[21:41] <jayvdb> On wikisource we summarise it as: Free content is content which can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed below).
[21:41] <Michael_B> Bduke: yes sounds good
[21:42] <jayvdb> that is from
[21:42] <enochlau> pfctdayelise: i can see your point but doesn't the ideal of free content go to the heart of what we're about and so we might want to be careful enough to put it into a defintion?
[21:42] <Bduke> OK, now on free content, I'm confused. Sure it is good thing, but which rule, appendix are we talking about?
[21:43] <enochlau> we're talking about making more specific/defining "freely licensed knowledge"
[21:43] <Angela> the question is whether we can say 'freely licensed knowledge' in the aims without defining free content
[21:43] <enochlau> or an equivalent term
[21:44] <enochlau> i dont think a definition in the definitions section will hurt
[21:44] <Bduke> I'd try to get it through without defining it. We know what it means. the registrar might not care, but he might notice a bad definition
[21:45] <Michael_B> I suppose that is true
[21:45] <enochlau> true
[21:45] <Angela> I think it could also take a long time to agree on a definition, so it's better we do that later on the website, and not in the rules
[21:45] <enochlau> ok
[21:45] <jayvdb> can we use "free content" rather than "freely licensed knowledge"
[21:46] <enochlau> as angela said before, it can be confused with free as in ber
[21:46] <enochlau> *beer
[21:46] <Bduke> If that is consensus, we are nearly there - just 9. 10, 20, 25, 29 and 35
[21:46] <jayvdb> it is not confusing among us.
[21:47] <Angela> and there are issues from the FSF with the word "content" which is why the logo on changed from "defintion of free content" to "definition of free cultural works"
[21:47] <jayvdb> "knowledge" feels very Wikipedia specific.
[21:47] <enochlau> free licensed cultural works then?
[21:47] <Angela> could do
[21:47] <jayvdb> "free cultural works" works for me
[21:47] <Michael_B> yes I like that
[21:48] <Bduke> Alan Davidson is a wikipedian I came across by chance. he is a law academicat the University of Queensland and is an expert on incorporation law. He has written a paper on unidying the State Incorporation laws.
[21:48] <Michael_B> nice
[21:48] <enochlau> bduke: that's very good. is he keen on helping out much?
[21:48] <Bduke> free licensed cultural works sounds good
[21:49] <enochlau> *freely* licensed better i think
[21:49] <enochlau> that was a typo on my part originally
[21:50] <enochlau> next section?
[21:50] <Angela> "support and promote" is in the aims twice now, so needs rewriting a bit
[21:50] <enochlau> we need to move faster, i think the rough edges can be edited offline
[21:50] <Bduke> Alan has even indicated he would serve on the committee. See the discussion on his WP talk page - User AlanDavidson I think - I'll check
[21:51] <Bduke> Alan - yes - User talk:Alandavidson#Wikimedia Australia
[21:51] <enochlau> I agree with changes in s9
[21:51] <enochlau> I agree with the rest of his changes actually
[21:51] <Michael_B> I agree with the changes in blue to sections 9, 10, 25, 29 and 35.
[21:52] <Bduke> 10 is the same as 9
[21:52] <enochlau> Does anyone else have comments on these sections?
[21:53] <Bduke> 20(4) is an issue. We could have officers over 18 but allow ordinary members to be under 18
[21:53] <Bduke> I had a notion that was the consensus but Alan thought we indented what he wrote
[21:53] <enochlau> i dont see the problem with having it like that
[21:53] <Bduke> intended not indented
[21:54] <Bduke> I would prefer to not adopt his chnage to 20(4) - let under 18s be ordinary members but not officers
[21:55] <Michael_B> I agree with that
[21:55] <Angela> I thought the idea was to have chapter members who can be under 18, but not committee members under 18
[21:55] <Angela> all committee members are officers, aren't they?
[21:55] <Bduke> No
[21:55] <enochlau> yes, you can still be an ordinary member if you're under 18, by the devised s20(4)
[21:55] <enochlau> *revised
[21:55] <Bduke> There are 4 officers and 2 ordinary committee members
[21:56] <enochlau> the situation then becomes that anyone can join, but only those 18 or over can become committee members. is that a problem?
[21:56] <Angela> the committee is essentially the board, and I don't think those should be under 18
[21:57] <Michael_B> In my opinion we shouldn't place the restriction in unless there's a legal requirement for it (which there doesn't seem to be)
[21:57] <enochlau> i'm not sure i feel comfortable with a 12 year old potentially being elected to committee
[21:57] <Bduke> If we adopt ADs change all officers and ordiinary commtitee members are over 18. If we do not, officers are over 18 but ordinary committee members need not be
[21:58] <jayvdb> I agree with excluding under 18 yo from the committee. We are not likely to be in need of suitable candidates.
[21:58] <Michael_B> obviously judgement can be used when voting
[21:58] <pfctdayelise> we discussed this for some time at the last meeting
[21:58] <Bduke> But we did not really make this distinction
[21:59] <enochlau> what was the consensus then?
[21:59] <Bduke> The wording we left was only for officers. I would prefer to leave it at that but AD added ord comm members
[21:59] <pfctdayelise> i thought it was committee > 18, members unrestricted
[22:00] <Bduke> the wording was just the red in 20(4)
[22:00] <Michael_B> I thought we decided officers > 18, all others unrestricted
[22:00] <enochlau> to be honest, i would be more comfortable if the entire committee was over 18, and that includes ord committee members
[22:00] <zero1328> I think I said this in the last meeting, but basically "not likely" still has a slim chance.. we should still leave it open since I dont see much harm in it
[22:00] <zero1328> Our own judgement can be used to determine whether they're qualified
[22:01] <Michael_B> agree with zero1328 on that
[22:02] <Angela> maybe we should just leave it as officers > 18 and decide the other part later. Not every rule needs to be an official rule in this document. We can come to consensus on other things later on and not have them be in there
[22:02] <Bduke> I see 2 for ADs addition (Angela and Enoch) and 3 against it - me, Michael and Zero. Is that right?
[22:03] <jayvdb> that will result in people with more enthusiasm than sensibilities putting themself forward
[22:03] <Angela> I'm not overly concerned either way, so if there's more consensus to allow under 18s, then I'll go along with it
[22:03] <enochlau> i'm the same as angela
[22:05] <Bduke> I would go along with the opposite too. I'm not sure what the consensus is
[22:05] <enochlau> so are we sure there's no legal requirement about ths?
[22:05] <enochlau> *this
[22:06] <jayvdb> I am happy either way. It is just my preference to put in an age limit to avoid dramas.
[22:06] * Riana|Away is now known as Riana
[22:06] <Bduke> There is no legal requirement. I talked to the Registrar. He was was quite clear. Only the Public Officer has to be over 18 and live in Victoria
[22:08] <enochlau> haha im not sure what we should do now. straw poll? :S
[22:08] <Bduke> My view is that Wikipedia has some great under-18 members and I would like them to be represented on the Committee but not a majority. With 4 officers and 2 ord comm members that would no majority
[22:08] <Michael_B> we could always compromise
[22:09] <Michael_B> we discussed setting the bar at 16 last meeting, nothing came of it though
[22:09] <enochlau> i dont mind 16
[22:10] <Michael_B> (that is, the 2 ordinary comm members being 16+, which might address what jayvdb is concerned about)
[22:10] <Bduke> However I suspect that members, like the group here would be on average older than the average of wikipedians. Is any one here under 18?
[22:10] <zero1328> Well, I'm 17 right now
[22:10] <zero1328> But I don't thiunk I'll end up on the commitee
[22:10] <Michael_B> I'm under 18
[22:11] <jayvdb> Michael_B: my concern is that having two seats with different limits will result in underage people being expected to fill those seats.
[22:12] <Bduke> Jayvdb: good point
[22:12] <enochlau> hmm yes
[22:13] <Bduke> Shall we stick with all committee members - officers and ord comm members being over 18 for now and look at it again in the future?
[22:13] <jayvdb> our committee can easily be filled with very skilled and experienced people; I dont see why we need to use seats on the board as a means to achieve representation for our underage members
[22:13] <Bduke> That would be ADs proposal in blue
[22:14] <enochlau> i think so. all members, regardless of age, should be listened to by their representatives anyway so everyone's opinions should still get the fore.
[22:15] <Michael_B> hm. not saying we should select people because they are under 18, but I still think we should leave our options as open as we (reasonably) can
[22:15] <jayvdb> enochlau: yes. And everyone who would be committee members are likely to already be very well aware of the value of our underage members.
[22:17] <zero1328> We should be able to modify the rules after establishment right? If so, I guess we could always modify them if it's really required. We can go either way, really.. :/
[22:17] <Angela> perhaps it makes more sense to leave this up to the members (since they'll be voting on the committee) instead of trying to decide amongst very few people here now
[22:18] <pfctdayelise> mm
[22:18] <Michael_B> agree with angela here
[22:18] <pfctdayelise> i guess it is something that voters will be mindful of anyway
[22:18] <enochlau> ok
[22:18] <pfctdayelise> default bias to assume older = more responsible :)
[22:18] <Bduke> We need a special resolution, but there is bound to be some point in the next 3 years when we will need to make some changes. Less important ones can be added to the important ones then
[22:19] <zero1328> Like I said earlier, I'm pretty sure we can elect them based on our own judgement.. The kid might be naive but we're not
[22:21] <enochlau> I trust my judgement but sometimes the data we have isn't perfect. At elections for uni clubs, it's quite hard to choose because I don't know everyone equally well. I think having the default bar at 18 for now and then possibly changing later is what we should do.
[22:23] <Bduke> It is ADs addition in blue or not. We have to decide. We do not want more delays. We want to get this off to the Foundation very soon
[22:23] <Michael_B> straw poll?
[22:23] <zero1328> Coin flip?
[22:23] <Bduke> Yes, I say not to ADs addition in blue
[22:23] <pfctdayelise> let ordinary members be u18
[22:23] <Michael_B> I say not
[22:24] <enochlau> I say yes to over 18.
[22:24] <jayvdb> I say yes to ADs blue changes
[22:24] <pfctdayelise> ok, let's do it
[22:24] <enochlau> zero1328: online coin flip? :P
[22:24] <pfctdayelise> all comm members must be > 18. any final objections?
[22:25] <zero1328> enochlau, I was thinking regular coin actually, I have this one coin I always use.. always comes up with the right choice
[22:25] <zero1328> don't ask
[22:25] <jayvdb> :-)
[22:26] <enochlau> zero1328: my point was, how could you report the result to us and have us convinced that what you report is the truth? :) (not that i dont trust you!)
[22:26] <pfctdayelise> stay on topic, people, this is a long meeting
[22:26] <jayvdb> any objections? can we move on to 25. ?
[22:26] <Michael_B> looks like we're keeping the blue then
[22:27] <Bduke> The straw poll is still not a consensus, but I thing we shpould keep the blue now
[22:27] <enochlau> for s25(3) i dont think there is a substantive change in blue?
[22:27] <zero1328> Just don't forget that we can always change it later on
[22:27] <Michael_B> that looks fairly straightforward (s25 that is)
[22:28] <jayvdb> looks ok. s29. any comments there?
[22:28] <Bduke> 25(3) AD things it is legally clearer but no real chaneg
[22:28] <pfctdayelise> yep
[22:28] <enochlau> hmm yes, s29(3), why was the change made?
[22:28] <Angela> I don't like the blue change in 29. The point was that anyone voting (all members) should need to provide ID
[22:29] <Angela> it's not only the committee that votes
[22:29] <enochlau> i think all members should provide ID too
[22:29] <jayvdb> I agree we want all members to provide ID.
[22:29] <pfctdayelise> that is a non trivial administration overhead
[22:29] <pfctdayelise> just to point out
[22:30] <Bduke> Angela - 29 is only about voting at committee meetings
[22:30] <Bduke> Voting at AGMs is different because it is proxies or people at real meetings with returning officers
[22:30] * Riana is now known as Riana|Away
[22:31] <enochlau> should this requirement be in s16?
[22:31] <Angela> oh, sorry. that's fine then, but maybe unnecessary
[22:31] <Bduke> The point is to convince the registrar that we really know who is at IRC meetings like this
[22:31] <enochlau> s16 being Voting at general meetings
[22:32] <Angela> it could be in 16, but if that's real life meetings, maybe there's less need
[22:32] <Bduke> and 9(9) and10(9) about teleconferencing
[22:33] <Angela> is there just one place we can put it instead of having it in 9, 10, 16, and 29?
[22:33] <pfctdayelise> i think we want to be able to have it different for diff types of meetings don't we?
[22:34] <enochlau> shouldn't all votes be given only to those who are verified, online or in person?
[22:34] <Angela> yes, whatever the meeting, we want to be able to ask for ID from whoever is voting
[22:35] <jayvdb> pfctdayelise: s29 says "may" - we dont need to ask for ID from everyone all the time
[22:35] <pfctdayelise> be able to != require
[22:35] <pfctdayelise> right
[22:35] <Bduke> Requirements at IRC is different from at General meetings. Everyone knows that a real life meetings we need to know who people are at a crunch - maybe we send out membership cards
[22:35] <pfctdayelise> yeah, good idea
[22:35] <Bduke> Can I become a card carrying wikimedian?
[22:35] <jayvdb> having it always available is a bit like CheckUser -- if there are problems, the committee is authorised to require people provide IDs
[22:36] <Bduke> Indeed
[22:36] <Michael_B> yyep
[22:36] <enochlau> ok, so for online, we say "must" and for in-person we say "may"?
[22:36] <Angela> maybe this doesn't need to be in the rules. We can just tell people they may need to prove they're a member, without writing that in the document
[22:37] <pfctdayelise> yep
[22:37] <Bduke> I will alter the draft tomorrow to make all changes agreed here and make changes from the model rules in red and not blue
[22:37] <Michael_B> sounds good
[22:37] <Bduke> Could we then have say 4 days of discussion on the list and if there is no real objection send it off to the Foundation?
[22:37] <enochlau> "# The lodgement fee of $53.80 (if you've adopted the model rules) or $107.5 (if you've designed your own rules) "
[22:38] <enochlau> are all these changes going to make these "our own rules"?
[22:38] <enochlau> or is this still counted as model rules?
[22:38] <pfctdayelise> this is modified model rules
[22:38] <Angela> please try to make the aims sound a bit better. they're repetitive at the moment
[22:38] <Bduke> If there is objection we would need another IRC meetings
[22:39] <enochlau> ok i'll apologise in advance for not participating in the mailing list as i'll be away.
[22:39] <Bduke> Open to your ideas on aims, Angela. I'm better on rules
[22:39] <Angela> ok, but if anyone else has better wording suggestions, please just make those. Otherwise, I'll try
[22:39] <Angela> shall we decide who will be the interim committee now, or is that for another meeting?
[22:39] <pfctdayelise> s/The association shall work towards making/Our aim is to make
[22:40] <Michael_B> I think we're missing too many people to decide that here, Angela
[22:40] <Angela> pfctdayelise: that was in the old version. the suggested rewrite is below
[22:40] <pfctdayelise> oh
[22:40] <zero1328> waitaminute, so for 29, what was decided?
[22:41] <pfctdayelise> Michael_B: when will we ever have critical mass? and how will we know?
[22:41] <Angela> zero1328: 29 is fine as it is since it's only about committee meetings. for others, we can ask for ID, but we're not saying that in the rules
[22:41] <enochlau> we'll have critical mass at our first general meeting i'd presume
[22:41] <Angela> but we need the interim committee before then
[22:41] <Bduke> I think we need a committee at least in part before we have the meeting with 21 days notice to agree to incorporate. I suggest we leave that for a few weeks. The main thing now is to ask the Foubdation to approve.
[22:41] <enochlau> angela: although non-committee members can vote at committee meetings. shouldn't we also require ID off them?
[22:42] <Michael_B> I'm thinking we should use the mailing lists for that
[22:42] <jayvdb> can we have a separate meeting to discuss the interim committee - this one has been quite long
[22:42] <enochlau> agreed. leave it for later, and make it clear that's what we're doing in that meeting.
[22:42] <Angela> enochlau: no, I think they only vote at other meetings, not committee meetings
[22:42] <pfctdayelise> so many meetings :(
[22:42] <Michael_B> indeed
[22:43] <Angela> does anyone know how big the interim committee needs to be and does it need to be people in victoria?
[22:43] <enochlau> Angela: "Each member present at a meeting of the committee... is entitled to one vote" but it isn't clear normal members aren't in committee meetings
[22:43] <enochlau> or is that really obvious
[22:43] <Angela> I just assumed a meeting of the committee was a a meeting *only* of the committee
[22:43] <jayvdb> thank goodness these meetings are working reasonably well on IRC.
[22:43] <pfctdayelise> there are no requirements for the interim comm, it's just to push it through the door
[22:44] <pfctdayelise> I agree. non-comm don't go to comm meetings!
[22:44] <enochlau> ok :)
[22:44] <Bduke> teh interim committee does not need to be people in Victoria
[22:45] <jayvdb> Bduke: however the interim public officer does ?
[22:45] <Bduke> The interim comm can be any size - the rules do not apply until approved. the job is to call the meeting to approve the rules and incorporation
[22:45] <Angela> maybe 2 or 3 people could just volunteer on the mailing list and if there are no objections, we can go with that and not have another meeting about it?
[22:45] <pfctdayelise> YES!
[22:46] <pfctdayelise> Sarah volunteered herself
[22:46] <enochlau> ok if it's just to convene the meeting to approve rules etc, i dont see the problem with just picking anyone
[22:46] <Michael_B> agreed then, that saves us one meeting
[22:47] <Michael_B> or at least shortens our agenda for the next one...
[22:47] <enochlau> yes, because Meetings Kill.
[22:47] <enochlau> ok, when shall we convene again?
[22:47] <pfctdayelise> we don't need one until we hear back from WMF do we? assuming all is good here?
[22:47] <Bduke> teh PO has to live in Vic but is not required to be on the ocmmittee and is actually appointed by the General meeting the committee calls to agree to incorporation
[22:47] <jayvdb> after chapcom has sent us some feedback that needs discussion ?
[22:48] <enochlau> alright, that sounds good. ping us on the mailing list :)
[22:48] <enochlau> how long is the expected wait?
[22:48] <pfctdayelise> no idea
[22:48] <pfctdayelise> really can't tell
[22:48] <jayvdb> as long as it takes
[22:48] <jayvdb> :-)
[22:49] <Bduke> The interim committee will serve after incorportation is approved until it calls a special meeting to elect a proper committee. That should be fast but hte rules say it can be very slow
[22:49] <pfctdayelise> as long as a piece of string, and so on
[22:49] <Michael_B> ok. so all other discussion can take place on the mailing list over the next 4 days then?
[22:49] <Angela> sounds good
[22:49] <jayvdb> good. meeting over?
[22:49] <Michael_B> I don't think that leaves us with anything else to say here then
[22:49] <enochlau> great, i think so
[22:50] <Warpath> O_O
[22:50] <Michael_B> yes, metting closed :)
[22:50] * pfctdayelise hands out end-of-meeting cake
[22:50] <jayvdb> \o/
[22:50] <Michael_B> yay
[22:50] <enochlau> yummy
[22:50] <Bduke> Who is responsible for sending everything to the WMF
[22:50] <Warpath> meeting was scheduled for suday O_O
[22:50] <Warpath> sunday*
[22:50] <enochlau> warpath: how was it?
[22:50] <pfctdayelise> i will send stuff to WMF. if i can be reassured it's in a state to be sent. :)
[22:51] <Bduke> Great
[22:51] <Michael_B> ok :)
[22:51] <enochlau> sounds good
[22:51] <pfctdayelise> Delphine is a bit, er, indisposed at the moment I think :) so i doubt it will be super quick
[22:51] <enochlau> aww poor her. ok
[22:51] <pfctdayelise> in a positive way :)
[22:51] <enochlau> ah
[22:51] <enochlau> anyway im off, have fun
[22:52] <zero1328> do we need to set another meeting date yet?
[22:52] <zero1328> If they continue to be this long we should probably set it a little earlier
[22:52] <Mike42> not until chapcom gets back to us
[22:52] <jayvdb> zero1328: not at this stage. we will meet when we hear back from the chapcom
[22:54] <Bduke> OK, I'm off - thanks to all
[22:56] <Mike42> see you all later.
[22:56] <jayvdb> 'night all.