Community Council/Meetings/Third/Amendments to Open Community Governance Policy

Background

 * 1) 2nd WCC meeting resolved to action the proposed amendments to the Community Governance Policy
 * 2) WCC tasked a Community Workgroup convened by Kim Tucker to consider amendments to the Community Governance Policy
 * 3) The Community Workgroup Charter was approved by majority of WCC members.
 * 4) WCC members can read the Workgroup report
 * 5) 2nd Draft Policy to be considered for approval by Council.
 * 6) Note: Approval for the amendments would require a majority vote of the entire Council.

Pre-meeting discussion on background issues prior to drafting motions

 * Add pre-meeting discussion points here

Draft concept for motion
I move that the Open Community Governance Policy (Draft 2) be approved as written. Valerie Taylor 23:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Workgroup has done a first rate job, and the new 2nd draft addresses all the outstanding issues and clean-up identified to date. Big Thank you to all, especially Kim for your leadership and diplomacy.


 * -- I moved Valerie's post first listed under the "Discussion on draft motion" section below. I'm assuming this is a concept for consideration by our meeting -- not a discussion point per se. Valerie - - if I got this wrong -- please edit accordingly. --Wayne Mackintosh 00:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Motion

 * Hi Savithri, -- Valerie posted her motion under the discussion section for a concept motion -- so I assumed that she was posting a concept motion for the meeting to think about and to discuss any issues. It would appear that their is rough consensus to propose approval of Draft 2 as you have done below. So once a seconded members would be able to consider their votes. --Wayne Mackintosh 04:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I move that the Open Community Governance Policy (Draft 2) be approved. Savithri Singh 04:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Second

 * I second the motion--Pankaj 05:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Approval

 * List votes for approval here and sign
 * Randy Fisher 11:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Valerie Taylor 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Victor P. K. Mensah 13:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Vincent Kizza 14:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rob Kruhlak 16:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ioana Chan Mow 21:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ken Udas 22:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pankaj 03:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Savithri Singh 04:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sanjaya Mishra 04:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim Tucker 13:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Christine Geith 04:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Erik Moeller 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy seems to me to strike a good balance between representing the community, and bringing in a diverse set of skills and viewpoints.--Erik Moeller 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anil Prasad 08:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On tour connected to a training, sorry for the belated voting
 * Günther Osswald 09:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahrash Bissell 04:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Disapproval

 * Leighblackall 10:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I do not agree to appointing non elected people into the Council, then (possibly) through to an Executive. Experts and people with targeted skills and perspectives can be brought in on an as needed basis to advise and assist, but they should not have voting rights.
 * I agree with Leigh. As I nominated member of the council, I feel that I should have less rights than those I elected for the council. If you value my skills, nominate me so I can run. If I get enough votes, I will feel that I have earned the right to vote as a full member of the council. --Nellie Deutsch 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that nominated members are appointed where required to "achieve a functional balance between elected officials and professional expertise, diversity and equality required for good governance of the WikiEducator community".
 * If the Council decides to nominate someone (following WikiEducator's usual open participative processes), then the appointed nominee should be treated the same as anyone else on the council. Voting is a means of assessing consensus and surfacing issues which need to be discussed in order to attain it. If the nominee was appointed to gain representativeness (diversity, equality, ...) then his/her "vote" (perspective) counts. - Kim Tucker 13:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SteveFoerster 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I've come to agree strongly agree with Leigh's position. If it's truly a Community Council, then members should be be chosen by the community from those within the community.  If others want to help out, they're certainly welcome, but I don't see why they need to have a vote, which by definition here means a voice that speaks on community members' behalf.
 * I am an appointed member of the council. Be that as it may, these are very good points, and they get back to my question above about whether the governance policy supports processes that enable diversity of opinions and dynamism. In my experience on a number of councils, boards and advisory groups, the ability for a governance group to appoint members is an additional mechanism for fostering functional balance and diversity, as Kim stated. If elected members (the majority of the WE council) deem it necessary to appoint short-term (1 year) members as a choice to improve the liklihood of high-quality, diverse discussion AND decisions via voting, then they should be able to exercise this option. If appointments are conducted using open participative processes, that will help ensure that the possible negative political consequences of appointees is mitigated. This has been my experience, but of course, I am an appointed member ; ) Christine Geith 4:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Abstention

 * Any abstentions must be listed here

Result
A majority of the Council has voted to approve this motion. This motion has been approved. (For the record --- additional votes are always welcome) --Wayne Mackintosh 22:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)