Third WCC meeting

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search

Agenda for the third Council meeting

Date: 26 April to 7 May 2010.


Approval of previous meeting minutes

Approval of the agenda for this meeting

Old Business

  1. Workgroup to consider amendments to Open Community Governance Policy
  2. Workgroup to develop style guidelines -- Status: Ongoing
  3. Workgroup for policies and guidelines for Administrators -- Status: Ongoing
  4. Decision on the establishment of an Executive Committee - postponed from 2nd meeting.

New Business

  1. Planning for the nomination of nominated members (Clarification: Term of office is 1 year for nominated members, which can be renewed. The effective date for the term of office was the last full council meeting, i.e. 23 September 2009.
    1. How to encourage being critical within the council without having good members leave...
  2. Guidelines / policy relating to embedding links to inks/widgets to third party hosted media (e.g video, slide shows)
  3. Guidelines / policy relating to ancillary web services (e.g. Google Custom Search)
  4. Advice and recommendations on the implementation of the Donor privacy policy prepared by the OER Foundation

Action items arising from the Third meeting of Council


Note: All draft documents are to be developed in the wiki


  1. Wayne Mackintosh 05:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. Randy Fisher 10:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. Savithri Singh 10:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  4. Vincent Kizza 11:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  5. Nellie Deutsch 11:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  6. Valerie Taylor 13:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  7. SteveFoerster 13:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  8. Rob Kruhlak 00:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  9. Ioana Chan Mow 6.55, 26th April 2010 (UTC)
  10. Victor P. K. Mensah 09:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  11. Pankaj 09:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  12. Kim Tucker 10:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  13. Peter Rawsthorne 15:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  14. Erik Moeller 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  15. Christine Geith 12:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  16. brent simpson 03:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  17. Ahrash Bissell 04:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  18. Sanjaya Mishra 04:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  19. Anil Prasad 05:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  20. Ken Udas 12:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  21. Leighblackall 10:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  22. Günther Osswald 10:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  23. Please sign in your attendance with four tilde (~)...

Apologies received

  1. Bronwyn Hegarty --- Posted on WCC list. On thesis leave polishing the submission of her PhD -- go Bron, we're cheering for you! --Wayne Mackintosh 05:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. David Wiley --- Apology assumed as per Tweet announcing "Summer Month Away from Email" auto-responder. Looking forward to a fabulous analog May with my family!" - --Wayne Mackintosh 05:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. Bronwyn Hegarty - Yes I am in the final throes of the thesis. It is best I put in an apology, however when I get bored with it, I will jump in and see what is happening. I will just be a lurker and will abstain from voting this time around. All the best with the meeting.
  4. Ioana Chan Mow 21:44, 28 April 2010- All the best with your thesis Bronwyn. From your contributions I have seen so far in the Wiki Council discussions you will have no problem with this challenge. Cheers Ioana

Motions and votes

  1. A quorum is in attendance and the meeting is officially called to order --Wayne Mackintosh 22:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Under development

Meeting drafts

  • Workgroup for WE Ready Mix OERs THANKS for the feedback and suggestions. WE have so much going resulting from other agenda items, that I think we should hold off on this until another time. If you are interested in working on this, we can stay in touch and exchange ideas. At some point, I hope that this will become a priority item. Then we can move ahead with the formal Workgroup with a plan, a schedule and WCC approval. Until then... thanks much to you all. --Valerie Taylor 23:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding this item to the agenda -- I do agree that this will become a priority item in the future once we get past the important decisions we have on the table at this time. Appreciate your initiative to help Council focus on our business of the day. --Wayne Mackintosh 00:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Active: Please Discuss and Vote

Notices to Council

On hold

  • None


Not approved

Failed for lack of second


Is there two motions here?
Hi Peter, thanks for your point of information. No there are not two motions on the table. There is currently an Active motion on the table. The meeting is debating the draft of a possible amendment to the active motion (i.e. Staw Dog 3). Hopefully Council members will collaborate on a consensus draft for tabling the amendment. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
ok, I'll agree the Straw Dog 3 is trying to bring consensus. I was trying to vote on the motion and was reading through the alternatives and found I couldn't discern what was the motion and if it was seconded... So I thought having two different distinct motions would bring closure. I believe the two issues could be separated into these two motions and bring closure. $0.02 -- Peter Rawsthorne 22:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Implement the ability for embedding third party media using the widgets extension
  2. Establish a community working group to formulate a proposal specifying the guidelines for embedding third party media

-- Peter Rawsthorne 21:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The current motion is formerly tabled and seconded. Procedurally any amendment can be tabled by a member to call a vote. That said, I think a commitment to work towards a consensus amendment which tries to accommodate the majority of opinion is the responsible way forward. The two points you listed above are draft Alternatives to consider tabling a consensus amendment. Yesterday I posted a few notes to clarify procedure on calling the vote on Staw Dog 3 -- I suspect you missed this. Its at the top of the page. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Further to your original query, to which I posted a response at 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC), you proceeded to call a vote on the draft amendment process after the clarification on your point of information. In a subsequent edit above, you suggested that splitting the two draft motions was a mechanism to bring closure. Procedurally, it is not possible for the assembly to consider two motions which are similar at the same time. This meeting has already ruled on a similar instance where a motion was ruled out-of-order. I believe that you were party to the motion ruled out-of-order, having cast a vote and hopefully you would have been aware of the fact that the meeting cannot consider two motions at the same time. --Wayne Mackintosh 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)