Talk:Wikimedia Australia/Rules for Wikimedia Australia Inc
Add topicOld discussion:
Meeting 9
[edit]The draft has been updated after meeting 9 on February 7. It will be sent to WMF after February 11 after any necessary further discussion on the mailing list. The aims are as drafted after the meeting by User:Angela and explained on the mailing list. --Bduke 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Rules now sent to Wikimedia Foundation for approval
[edit]The rules have now been sent to the Chapters Committee of the Foundation for approval.
There has just been a edit from an IP user. I put this on the IP's talk page, but it may not be seen there. "Sorry, my last edit to the Wikimedia Australia Rules had an edit summary that was wrong. I have added the link to the Act on Wikimedia Australia. The other link is out of date. I have linked the download of the current rules. The Foundation have been pointed to Wikimedia Australia for further information about incorporation in Victoria. Please do not edit the rules while it is with the Foundation, as that may confuse them. Raise concerns on the talk page. Thanks."
"Please do not edit the rules while it is with the Foundation, as that may confuse them" is a plea to everyone. If we have not got it right, raise issues here and we can make sure the Foundation is told about them is a clear and appropriate manner. --Bduke 07:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
protect?
[edit]If these rules are 'finished' and 'complete' (strange words to use on a wiki, but there you go...) then shouldn't we be fully protecting the page so as to ensure it remains unaltered? There is no further need for it to be changed, in fact, any change from the version that was legally approved would be detrimental. Witty lama 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I was going to ask Daniel to do it as he is meta admin, but I had not got around to it. There is no urgency. I'm watching it carefully. --Bduke 01:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Yes, there's no particular urgency - not like we're expecting a sudden rush of vandalism or that we couldn't rollback if it were. Just when we get around to it. Witty lama 05:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)