WikiEducator talk:Community Council/Meetings/First/Nominated members
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Why are they nominated? | 1 | 11:54, 11 October 2008 |
| Legitimacy of the Page | 2 | 12:30, 10 October 2008 |
As an active community member I have been following all this quite closely. I would definately say the council and WE is exactily where it should be. The council is in the storming stage and WE as a whole is a teenager... ;) Keep up all the great work council, everyone is exactly where they should be !!!
My question, Why are they nominated?!? Why wouldn't the "non-elected" members come from the community in a way that is non-traditional like the suggested nomination. We are pushing the bounds of innovation in education and the application of social networks. Why wouldn't the "non-elected" members be based on the UPE or choose an approach that isn't based upon elected member(s) bias??? (An example; Every month the new UPE would be asked to join the council, if they decline everything stays the same, if they accept the longest standing "non-elected" member steps down.) Wouldn't this kind of approach be more community based and less "biased"??? This approach would also keep things fresher... When I look at the current council and the proposed nominated council, I don't see a lot of new faces. A council structure that keeps its freshness (new blood) is a sign of health.
Just a thought, cheers...
Hi Peter --
That's good left brain thinking and aligned with the wiki model. mmmm interesting. Technically the elected members could institute a nominated seat(s) on Council for this Community Category, eg for a UPE, a featured institution or whatever.
Yeah -- in my view, this is worth thinking about.
Cheers
Since we are not done discussing the need of nominated members, this page is totally irrelevant and there is no practical value of these nominations. This is a step forward thinking which should be discouraged since it has no community consensus.
Agreed Minhaaj, I was surprised to see this page and only came across it today when Wayne started a 2nd Agenda page. Given the velocity of your and my objections to the Nominated Members, Brent's uncertainty about it, Leutha's concerns (all on the First Agenda Page in the Debate section), as well as Steve's proposals for alternative ways to handle this (on the Email forum), and Bronwyn's comment on the [The Draft Policy Discussion page] (no doubt I have missed some places), it seems very presumptuous of Wayne to start this page.
However, evidently Wayne was confident enough to start this page regardless of the uncertainty, and a number of others have engaged in this page and by doing so are expressing their support for this Nominations process. It is a concern to me that this action and support goes ahead without the others engaging in the debate, or the discussions, or the alternative proposals for it. So either there are other discussion going on elsewhere that we are not aware of that gives them a sense that this is the agreed process, and we are alienated from the Council all together, or the sheer chaotic number of pages and channels for communication going on has broken down communication and no one knows what is happening but for a few people taking action regardless.
Where discussion has taken place so far:
- First Agenda Page
- First Agenda Page discussion page
- This Nominated Members page
- Probably The 2nd draft agenda page
- Email forum (discussion about Nominated Members starts Sept 30)
- The Draft Policy Discussion page
- And soon, Moodle.
Hi Leigh,
There is divided opinion on the question of nominated members. Those who support the notion of nominated members have the freedom to submit their names for nominated members in accordance with the draft policy.
This is why I believe that it is appropriate and prudent to get a clear mandate from the Community via a referendum on these questions.
Cheers
