Community Council/Meetings/Third/Motion to adjourn the meeting

Background

 * 1) In recognition of the time Council members gift to participating in our meetings, we should aim to keep meetings within the advertised and schedule time frames for our meetings
 * 2) Regular agenda items which are work in progress will be included incorporated into the "Old business" section of the agenda
 * 3) Items which are both important and urgent can be accommodated by scheduling a special meeting for the motion concerned.
 * 4) Items requiring ongoing discussion and inputs by Council and WikiEducator members can be addressed by WCC appointed Community Workgroups.
 * 5) The motion to adjourn should specify:
 * 6) * The proposed time frame for scheduling the next meeting
 * 7) * Specify any Workgroups that should be appointed
 * 8) * Specify any important and urgent items requiring a special meeting before the next general meeting of Council.
 * 9) We will need to schedule our next general meeting to take place before 15 September 2010.

Lazy consensus poll
As Chair, I feel that it is unprofessional to run meetings beyond their advertised schedule. I realise that their are unresolved motions on the table and therefore need your guidance and mandate to continue the meeting beyond its scheduled time or whether to consider adjournment.

The Lazy consensus poll question is: Should we consider a motion to adjourn this meeting? Yes (Vote = +1), No (Vote = -1), Abstain / not sure (Vote = 0). --Wayne Mackintosh 00:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * -1, No. We should finish what we started. SteveFoerster 02:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * -1. It is better to complete the meeting. As adjournment would mean another quick meeting. This could be a reason to have a localized EC to take quick decision. Not very sure, at this stage. Sanjaya Mishra 04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 0. Due both to the structure of these meetings and the shape of my schedule these past two weeks, I have only been able to log in and review things for relatively short but intense periods in order to understand the issues at hand and vote. As a result, my participation has been marginal at best, and certainly unable to keep up with the longer dialogs such as around the use of rich media. So, I am unsure here because I have not been as invested as others here, but do not see any hope that I can be any more invested in the near future either. Apologies for the vacillation. Ahrash Bissell 04:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any structural changes you believe would help make it easier to participate? SteveFoerster 14:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * -1, No, we should continue until most members of the council have had a chance to vote. The meeting has been run and the votes cast by a minority of the council members and as such may not be a realistic representation. Maybe WE should consider having a council of 10 elected members in the future. --Nellie Deutsch 04:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your sentiments -- but a minor correction, each motion approved was approved by a majority vote and there is a registered attendance just short of 90% of Council. So it is incorrect to say that a minority has voted. Moreover, our Governance policy presumes assent which means if you don't cast your vote, you agree with the majority. I've just checked the voting register and noted that you have not voted on every motion and we respect the rights of any Council member to abstain or not vote. Would be great if you would indicate your abstentions in cases where you felt you could vote on principle :-) -- --Wayne Mackintosh 05:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wayne, I just checked the attendance and you are correct. WE had a great turnout. :) Nellie Deutsch 05:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * -1 (No) Rob Kruhlak 22:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * -1 Kim Tucker 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC) - Would it make sense to set sub-goals and timeline?
 * Yip sub-goals and timeline are useful -- speaking from the Chair, I would suggest resolution of the current motions on the agenda. Realistically, I don't have the time to chair a meeting at this level beyond the close of business this week. Ideally we can wrap up the resolutions before then :-). We have a number of important workgroups to be constituted and every member of Council is invited (and hopefully will participate.) --Wayne Mackintosh 22:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * -1 (No). Savithri Singh 04:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * -1 (No). Ioana Chan Mow 11:44 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * -1 (No). Peter Rawsthorne 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC) - as a group I believe we have invested a fair bit in understanding the motions. It would seem like a loss of work to get ourselves back up to speed in September. Let's finish what we have started.
 * As Nominated Member, I feel that it is professional to honour the discussion and realities that push meetings beyond their advertised schedule. ;) Peter Rawsthorne 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on draft motion
I would like to entertain a motion to adjourn the Third Meeting of Council by the close of business, Friday, 14 May 2010 (Based on the local time in Apia, Samoa). (See: Local time conversion)


 * The Fourth meeting of Council will be scheduled before mid September 2010
 * Urgent and/or important decisions required before this time will be accommodated by scheduling a special meeting.
 * Council members are invited to join the Council appointed Workgroups approved during this session.

--Wayne Mackintosh 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Motion
I hereby move a motion for adjournment of this meeting at close of business hours on 14th May 2010 (local time in Apia, Samoa), with an understanding that we meet again in or before September 2010. Savithri Singh 07:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Second

 * --Victor P. K. Mensah 08:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on tabled motion
I am keen to bring this meeting to a close. Just one item to which I'd like to draw attention: (fast track motion on) Guidelines for ancillary web services - Kim Tucker 08:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also keen to bring this meeting to a close. My one concern is I believe WE is not assessing its current adoption life-cycle well. I believe the council perceives the WE contributor profile as early majority where WE still very much needs the innovator / early adopter. I am making reference to the diffusion of innovations theory. By having way too much bureaucracy and the barriers to contribution that seem to be forming by creating policies like 3rd party media, ancillary web services, privacy policy, etc... WE is going to "scare" away (evidence is showing it is doing so now) the innovator / early adopter contributor type. For WE growth, people need to be able to create, reuse and add OER content with reckless abandon. And they need a platform that does not restrain in any way... even if it does "break" the rules. WE could still claim Fair-Use if a copyright challenge (if ever) comes. By putting up barriers to contribution WE will never achieve the required 15% to cross over into the majority. -- Peter Rawsthorne 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Approval

 * List votes for approval here and sign
 * Randy Fisher 08:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Vincent Kizza 08:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sanjaya Mishra 09:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SteveFoerster 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Valerie Taylor 13:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Savithri Singh 16:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter Rawsthorne 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nellie Deutsch 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim Tucker 19:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ioana Chan Mow 21:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wayne Mackintosh 04:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC) - Casting vote to record a majority, taking presumption of assent of members who have not cast their votes by the scheduled adjournment time.
 * Christine Geith 04:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anil Prasad 05:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Leighblackall 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pankaj 10:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ken Udas 10:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Erik Moeller 09:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Disapproval

 * List votes for disapproval here and sign

Abstention

 * Rob Kruhlak 03:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Result
A majority of the Council has voted to approve this motion. This motion has been approved and the meeting is adjourned. (For the record --- additional votes are always welcome) --Wayne Mackintosh 04:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)