Talk:Wikimedia Australia/Incorporation

Meeting Dates

Seems that either date doesn't work for me. That's ok though, I'll just be there in spirit. I presume minutes will be available after the meeting? Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, kept by the Secretary of the interim Committee. Daniel 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to vote by proxy. --Bduke 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent I was hoping this would be the case. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Privacy concerns and possible minor changes to rules

At the IRC meeting 9, I agreed to consult with Consumer Affairs about privacy issues such as protecting members contact details. While some of that discussion centred on rule 36, it seems to be clear that the main concern is with rule 5

5. Register of members

(1) The Secretary must keep and maintain a register of members containing-

(a) the name and address of each member; and

(b) the date on which each member's name was entered in the register.

(2) The register is available for inspection free of charge by any member upon request.

(3) A member may make a copy of entries in the register.

On March 7th, I phoned Consumer Affairs and discussed this issue. It became clear that that the register has to contain the legal name of each member. However, while the model rules, ask for "address" it was indicated to me that we could remove "and address" from 5(1)(a) in our modified model rules. They indicated that members had a right to know who their fellow members were. On the e-mail list, I made a number of suggestions that were extensively discussed there. However, most comments concentrated on individual parts of my proposal while I thought of it as a whole. Slightly modified my proposal is:-

1. We satisfy the right of members to know their fellow members mainly by listing all members with their major wikimedia project username only on a page on meta. Nevertheless, we can not remove the right of members to see the register, so we limit what the register contains to name and date the entry was added. I would also suggest that, giving the pretext of properly identifying the members, that the Secretary would only give access to the register in person.
2. Members can opt to receive information by email or fax. The Secretary should keep a list, other than the register, that contains the name and contact details. To meet Rule 12(2), the contact details, have to be a postal address, an email address or a fax number, but they could also list a phone number or user talk page. This list would be available only to the Secretary and any other officer or committee member acting as Secretary in the Secretary's absence. This contact information and the major wikimedia project username would be given by the member on the membership form.

If this is accepted, we have to do only two things:-

1. Amend the rules to delete "and address" from rule 5(1)(a). I think the WMF, who have already approved our rules, would not have a problem with this and I presume they have a process for chapters later amending their rules. If we can get consensus to this rule change here and on the email list, it can be approved with the rest of the rules at the April incorporation meeting.
2. Modify the Membership form.

Am I close to getting the collective wisdom of the group? Please comment here.--Bduke 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate that some members have privacy concerns. I have to wonder though what legal implications this could lead to. If there is a standalone list to have contact details, where these fit into the legal picture of the association may be important in the future if any legal action occurs. The person you spoke to at Consumer Affairs might not have any problems with it but there could be other legal issues that need to be considered down the track. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 04:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see what legal problems could arise. The register has the members name. The secretary's list has the members name and the contact details. Can you spell out what the legal problems might be so we can ask serious questions of our legal friends? BTW, the person at Consumer Affairs did not say we should have another list of contact details. She just said the register had to have the name in it and we could probably get the rules accepted without the address there. --Bduke 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What about "name and contact (as specified by the member) of each member". It is a bit clunky but it guarantees the register will fulfill its purpose. pfctdayelise 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

or "name and contact of each member (contact as specified by the member)". well really "name and contact", it is clear enough that the member supplies the contact info I guess! pfctdayelise 11:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems it would provide a level of anonymity the member prefers. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To Nicholas, not having an address on the Register would also provide anonymity. On the point about replacing "address" by "contact", I have hesitated in responding, because I just have a feeling that Consumer Affairs will not like it. However, on reflection, I think it is what we want and we should try. I suggest however that the amendment be - replace "address" by "contact details". The membership form would say that these have to be at least one (with one indicated as the preferred contact) of postal address, e-mail address or fax number (the rules require this - Rule 12(2)). I suggest we also ask for user name of main Wikimedia project and add it to the register (but not mention in rules - that would throw Consumer Affairs). We could allow people to add preferred user talk page, IRC Nick, phone number, etc., but these would not be required. I think rule 12(2) would also need amending to "Notice will be sent to the contact details appearing in the register". That will also help to convince Consumer Affairs, that they are real contacts that allow us to reach the member. I'll formulate the amendments in a proper fashion if there seems support for these rule changes. --Bduke 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Gnangarra, on the email list, has proposed that we add 3 new parts:-

4) Information from the register cannot be disclosed to non-members, the person obtaining the information must sign a declaration indemnifying WM-au against any damages resulting from the use of the information.

5) The secretary must keep and maintain a register of access requests containing

(a) Name, address, membership number of the person making the request

(b) date of access

(c) list of all entries copied from the register

(d) all entries in the access register are to be published at next AGM

6) The secretary may notify any or all members of any access request at any time.

Another message suggests 5(c) is not practical as people can memorise entries and write them down later. I am just trying to facilitate the discussion, which I suggest should be largely here, at least if there are specific proposals for amending the rules. --Bduke 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Committee members

Would it be possible for those who cannot attend to nominate committee members? Littleteddy 11:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so but you would be advised to propose them on the wikimediaau-l e-mail list as soon as possible so they can be discussed. It is not even clear that we will elect the interim committee at the meeting. There is a view that we can do it before. It is only an interim committee until the rules are accepted and hold the first AGM. --Bduke 11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Privacy concerns - summary of possibilities

There has been quite a lot of discussion on this, both here and on the email list. I thought it might be useful to summarise the possible changes to the rules that might need to be done to meet the concerns. The two relevant sections of the rules are (5) about the register of members and (12) about notice of General Meetings which shows how the register is used. I think the choices are:-

1. Leave the rules as we agreed earlier and were approved by the Foundation. This means name and address are on the register (Rule 5(1)(a)) and notice of meetings is sent to the address, or if requested by the member, by fax or electronically (Rule 12(2)). Even this needs a record, other than the register, kept by the Secretary, to hold email address, fax numbers etc.
2. Change Rule 5(1)(a) to remove "and address" and Rule 12(2)(a) to remove "to the address appearing in the register of members". This means only name is on the register and notice of meetings is the same as above. Again a record other than the register is required, in this case to also hold address.
3. Change Rule 5(1)(a) to replace "address" by "contact details" and replace 12(2) by "Notice will be sent to the members using the contact details given in the register of members".

In recent days, it appears opinion has moved back towards (1) above and this is certainly the easiest as it is approved by the WMF and is straight out of the model rules with no change so Consumers Affairs will have no concerns. One argument for supporting this course of action is that address can be a PO Box number and thus privacy can be preserved. It could even be a common PO Box with the members using e-mail to actually get notice of meetings. I also note that this is more private than the electoral roll which has to have a residence address not a PO Box.

I am now inclined to support this course of action (option 1 - no change) but I do not have privacy concerns. If I become Public Officer as suggested, I will have to put my actual home address on the forms which are available to anyone who cares to pay a fee to Consumer Affairs. So, if you want an option other than option (1), please indicate that as soon as possible. I am putting this on the email list also. --Bduke 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Proxy Forms

The proxy form needs to be signed, so if a user doesn't have a scanner, is there another way they can submit this form?

I had forgotten that my fiance has one so was trying to work out another solution, but even if I'm ok I'm sure there may be others in the same predicament. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 08:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the practice to send these back as e-mail attachments unsigned, but I suppose using an email address known to the Secretary. I certainly did this a few months ago for another organisation. Unless there is reason to challenge a vote sent in this way, I see no reason for it to be rejected. --Bduke 10:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Connections to Brisbane

I am trying to organise a get-together for the Brisbane guys so we can possibly get a teleconference connection happening between Computerbank and wherever we are. Is there any Brisbane Wikimedians that would be interested in going to somewhere? Thanks, — E ^talk 07:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably only come if there are enough people to really justify it for me; otherwise I'd be sticking to IRC and Skype at home for this. I think we still need to work out the link-up in general, too, along with location. - Zero1328 _en:Talk? 08:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like too, but I can't do this weekend...would need a bit more notice, hopefully. The State Library would be a good place to do it. giggy _(:O) 08:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)