|The background for the motion is posted in this section with relevant links to any background papers, wiki pages or notifications on the main WikiEducator lists.
- 2nd WCC meeting resolved to action the proposed amendments to the Community Governance Policy
- WCC tasked a Community Workgroup convened by Kim Tucker to consider amendments to the Community Governance Policy
- The Community Workgroup Charter was approved by majority of WCC members.
- WCC members can read the Workgroup report
- 2nd Draft Policy to be considered for approval by Council.
- Note: Approval for the amendments would require a majority vote of the entire Council.
Pre-meeting discussion on background issues prior to drafting motions
|Pre-meeting discussions are posted in this area. Once the page for preparing a motion is uploaded to the wiki, this signifies that pre meeting discussions can commence. The page will be added to the "Under development" section of the homepage for the meeting. All discussions points should be duly signed. Once the meeting commences, the chair will call for a draft concept of the motion to be be presented below.
- 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)
|The draft concept for a motion is entered here drawing on the pre-meeting discussions. Due to the asynchronous nature of our meeting, it is standard practice to allow a reasonable period of time (usually 24 to 36 hours) from the time when the draft concept is posted in the wiki to when the motion is formerly tabled. This drafting phase is needed for the wiki format of the meeting. In this way, we avoid unnecessary motions to amend the tabled motions resulting from ambiguity or lack of clarity in the wording of the original tabled motion.
Discussion on draft motion
|The discussion of the draft motion is intended to refine the text for a tabled motion to avoid ambiguity and to improve clarity of the motion before requesting the assembly to consider tabling the motion.
|A motion is formally tabled by a member of the meeting once rough consensus is achieved through discussion of the draft concept for the motion above. The mover should table the text for the motion below, for example "I move that ....." Remember to sign the motion.
(: Isn't Valerie's comment a tabling of the motion? Savithri Singh 04:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
- 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)
|A second is required to indicate that the motion should come before the meeting. The second should sign below. Seconding a motion does not necessarily indicate support of the motion, it is an agreement that the motion should come before the assemble. Voting can commences once a motion is before the meeting. At this point the chair will place the motion under the "Active: Please discuss and vote" section of the home page for the meeting.
- I second the motion--Pankaj 05:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion on tabled motion
I am curious what Peter has to say about the policy - does it address concerns he raised about ensuring a diverse community of minds to keep governance flexible and nimble? Christine Geith 12:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|This is the area where points, clarifications and discussions on the motion take place once the motion is formerly tabled and seconded above. This discussion is not restricted to Council members --any WikiEducator may add their views.
|WikiEducator Council uses an open ballot where members of Council are required to cast their votes or abstentions publicly in the wiki. Voting can commence once a formal tabled motion has been seconded. The votes of Council members in attendance are counted to determine the outcome in accordance with the majority provisions for the particular motion.
- 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)
- 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)
- Any abstentions must be listed here
|The outcome of the vote is posted by the Chair in accordance with the majority requirements of the motion being tabled. Once a motion is approved, not approved or put on hold, this is updated on the home page of the meeting.
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)