WikiEducator:Community Council/Meetings/Second/Amendments to Open Community Governance Policy

Draft concept for motion

1. In section 5.3, under the title Executive Secretary the wording The Executive Secretary shall not be counted as a member of the Executive Committee and will not have voting rights on the Executive Committee may be amended as The Executive Secretary shall have ex officio status and not be counted as a member of the Executive Committee and will not have voting rights on the Executive Committee, if the person elected to the post is not a member of WikiEducator Community Council.
2. In 4.5.4 bullet point 5 reads upholds the Commonwealth values;. It may be removed as it is no longer applicable.

Discussion

• Introduction by Chair pro tem: The Policy for Open Community Governance provides the basis for amendments to the policy. As WikiEducator has become independent from the Commonwealth of Learning as of 30 June 2009, Sir John Daniel has communicated his resignation as founding Patron of WikiEducator. Council members may want to reconsider the office of Patron and indeed whether this is necessary. Consequently a proposal for amendment may arise with regard to the continuation or removal of this office from our Community Governance structures. Similarly there may be further amendments which members of Council wish to table. Council could consider using the Community Workgroup process for instituting a Council designated Workgroup to investigate, discuss and propose any amendments to the Policy for Open Community Governance. I invite the floor to consider tabling any proposals for ammendments. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Won't we need different motions for different amendments? For example, I expect that removal of the Patron section should be a non-controversial removal, but what if there are other proposals that are more contentious? --SteveFoerster 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, that's a valid point and good question. I not sure that I know the answer. Council will need to guide us here as to the best way forward. One alternative is to list all the proposals for amendments and to task a Council nominated Community Workgroup under the Community Workgroup policy to research, and develop proposals for amendments to be tabled at the next meeting of Council. Alternatively we may decide to deal with any amendments during this sitting. Perhaps the first step is to get a list of the kinds of amendments that may be needed and then to figure out the best way to execute our duties. Thoughts? --Wayne Mackintosh 01:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I buy the suggestion of making a list of the kind of amendments that may be needed,it will be then that we get a "feel" of the task at hand. We could then decide those we can dispense with in this sitting given time and other constraints and those which we can task to a council workgroup in subsquent meetings.--Vincent Kizza 05:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussions in the list I have placed a draft amendment above--Anil Prasad 07:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid proposal for amendment. Perhaps the draft should be prefaced with -- "Proposals for amendments for consideration during this sitting or deferment to a dedicated Community Council workgroup". This way we can separate out the amendments we can deal with at this sitting and plan our work for the future as Vincent has suggested above. Thoughts? -- --Wayne Mackintosh 07:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We should collect any new ammendmends and then have detailed discussion on them - there is no hurry to finalise them in this meeting - a working group created for the purpose could present their views. I'd be willing to be part of this workgroup. In this meeting we need to finalise vis-a-vis the position of Patron.savi 18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a sensible suggestion -- the advantage of deferring to a Community Workgroup convened by Council is that it will enable the Community to participate freely in the discussions and give us the time to discuss and explore the alternatives. The proposals presented by this Workgroup will require a majority vote by Council before the amendments can be approved at the next meeting. I'm also happy to volunteer my time to help out with this workgroup. Perhaps we need to follow Steve's advice setting up separate motion for each amendment that requires approval at this sitting. I see two on the list so far (1) The amendment regarding the Patron and (2) The amendment pertaining to Exeuctive secretary to correctly convey the intent vis-a-vis voting rights. Thoughts? --Wayne Mackintosh 22:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would hope that the WikiEducator family would continue to subscribe to the values of the Commonwealth, i.e. respect for diversity, education, democracy, good governance, the rule of law, human rights and shared prosperity! But you're right, we should remove the reference to the Commonwealth because we are an international project. Perhaps we need to articulate the values which are important for our open education community? -- for example referencing the values espoused by the Cape Town Open Education Declaration. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to WE being an international project (and not restricted to the Commonwealth). Articulating the values for the community are important but perhaps not in the Selection section. Section 4.5.1 references ...who will best fulfill the mission and needs of WikiEducator.. Is this sufficient? Rob Kruhlak 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Minor Points in the current draft (moved from General Discussion Page).

Motion

The WikiEducator Council moves to establish a Community Workgroup to discuss and draft amendments to the Interim Open Community Governance Policy with specific instruction to:

• Discuss, consider and implement the Minor Points drafted by Kim Tucker
• Discuss and consider amendments with reference to the office of Patron of WikiEducator.
• To update the policy with regard to organisational affiliation, for instance, references to the Commonwealth of Learning, for example in 4.5.4 bullet point 5 reads upholds the Commonwealth values; which will need to be ammended.
• Extend an open invitation to all Council members to consider joining the Workgroup for revising, updating and refining the Interim Open Community Governance Policy.
• To present the amended policy for approval at the next Community Council Meeting.

Second

I second the motion -- Anil Prasad 06:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Approval

1. Anil Prasad 06:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Valerie Taylor 06:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
3. savi 07:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Vincent Kizza 11:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Bronwyn Hegarty --bron 08:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Pankaj 09:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
7. SteveFoerster 14:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Rob Kruhlak 15:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Günther Osswald 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Randy Fisher 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Kim Tucker 21:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Ioana Chan Mow 23:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Nellie Deutsch 05:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Ahrash Bissell 05:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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 23:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)