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

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search


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.
  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:
    • The proposed time frame for scheduling the next meeting
    • Specify any Workgroups that should be appointed
    • Specify any important and urgent items requiring a special meeting before the next general meeting of Council.
  6. We will need to schedule our next general meeting to take place before 15 September 2010.

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.

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)
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)

Draft concept for motion

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.

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)


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.

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)


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.

Discussion on tabled motion

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.

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)


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 disapproval here and sign



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 and the meeting is adjourned. (For the record --- additional votes are always welcome) --Wayne Mackintosh 04:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)