Wikimedia Australia/Meeting 8/Log

Log of #wikimedia-au. Wikimedia Australia Meeting 8. Friday January 25, 2008. Times are AEST.

Prior to the meeting, Bduke pointed out that there is some consensus that the Draft Rules are ok.

Jayvdb suggested keeping the channel populated over the weekend so that the discussion can roll over the weekend, as people can make it.

[20:59] <cartmanau> either way i think we are probably all that are going to show
[20:59] <Mike42> yep
[20:59] <Angela> one thing I'm not clear on is whether Wikimedia Australia/Draft Rules of Association for Victoria 2 is the only document we're submitting to the foundation, or whether we need something else - like a separate bylaws pages or mission statement or something
[20:59] <pfctdayelise> we need an aims-like statement
[20:59] <Giggy> No reason not to submit and see if they ask for more
[20:59] <pfctdayelise> as an appendix
[20:59] <cartmanau> Angela: it should be all we need, they are the bylaws and mission
[21:00] <cartmanau> Brianna: Have you seen Appendix 5?
[21:00] <pfctdayelise> Giggy: given we don't know how long it will take to get through chapcom, i would prefer to try and only go through it once
[21:00] <Giggy> True
[21:00] <Mike42> appendix 5 is aims. I like it :)
[21:00] <Bduke> there is an aims staement as appendix. Nathan added it yesterday
[21:00] <Giggy> pfctdayelise, ^ (aims)
[21:00] <pfctdayelise> i see
[21:00] <cartmanau> Brianna: ChapCom isn't too bad to go through
[21:00] <cartmanau> Having said that I will not be voting on it
[21:00] <pfctdayelise> isn't too bad = how long? two weeks, four months?
[21:01] <Angela> Wikimedia Australia/Draft Rules of Association for Victoria 2#Appendices - cool, I hadn't seen this before
[21:01] <cartmanau> Brianna: If we have our act together it should be less than 2 weeks
[21:01] <pfctdayelise> i think the aims right now need some modification but that can be discussed later
[21:01] <cartmanau> Brianna: What modifications?
[21:01] <pfctdayelise> discussed later :)
[21:01] <jayvdb> what else is there to discuss ?
[21:02] <pfctdayelise> Brian?
[21:02] <Angela> I think a discussion of the aims might be a good place to start. It's probably the most important part of that page really
[21:02] <Bduke> Shall we go through the red clauses in the rules one by one?
[21:02] <Bduke> These are the ones that differ from the model rules
[21:03] <jayvdb> sounds good
[21:03] <jayvdb> everyone ok with "Wikimedia Australia Incorporated"
[21:03] <jayvdb> ?
[21:03] <pfctdayelise> how about: speak up if not OK :)
[21:03] <cartmanau> we dont get much of a choice with that
[21:03] <cartmanau> lol
[21:04] <Spebi> sounds fine
[21:04] <Giggy> sounds good
[21:04] <Mike42> I'm ok with it
[21:04] <zero1328> Sounds fine, we don't need anything fancy
[21:04] <jayvdb> in 4.6, "electronic transmission": does that include email ?
[21:04] <Riana> :o
[21:04] <Giggy> Hey Riana
[21:04] <Giggy> You're 5 mins late :O
[21:04] <cartmanau> yes
[21:04] <jayvdb> or is it intended to cover fax ?
[21:04] <Mike42> hey Riana
[21:04] <Riana> hiya :)
[21:04] <Riana> hi Mike
[21:05] <cartmanau> I see it as including both fax and email
[21:05] <cartmanau> hi
[21:05] <Bduke> OK, Vic is added in clause 2 because we are Australia wide but it is not stricitly required. That one OK?
[21:05] <jayvdb> Bduke: I think it is a good clarification.
[21:05] <cartmanau> Yes, we needed to make it clear which state it was incorporated in
[21:06] <Bduke> 4.6 the red stuff is not really required as electronic transmission is allowed by law. It includes e-mail
[21:06] <jayvdb> the other way to write it would be : "Act" means the Associations Incorporation Act 1981 of the State of Victoria;
[21:06] <Bduke> In fact the intention is that electronic transmission means e-mail
[21:06] <jayvdb> im not a fan of brackets, but nm
[21:07] <cartmanau> It's common in legal documents for the state or commonwealth to be in brackets
[21:07] <jayvdb> fair enough.
[21:08] <jayvdb> Im not keen on email, as there is no proof it was received.
[21:08] <pfctdayelise> jayvdb: did you think we would send mail by registered post?? i don't think so
[21:08] <cartmanau> jayvdb: We are an internet based organisation, I think it makes sense to use email
[21:09] <cartmanau> jayvdb: it's also faster and less expensive
[21:09] <pfctdayelise> ack
[21:09] <jayvdb> ok ok ;-)
[21:09] <Angela> especially now when we have no money - we shouldn't waste money on post if it's not necessary
[21:09] <Mike42> yes true
[21:09] <Bduke> the committee could decide to use just post for notifying members
[21:09] <Bduke> For the committee people have to agree to receive e-mail notices
[21:10] <jayvdb> the wording allows us to change to a more official-like mail based approach later on.
[21:10] <Bduke> Are we on to 9 and 10 now after 2 and 4. 9 and 10 are similar inclusions
[21:11] <jayvdb> no complaints here. anyone ?
[21:11] <cartmanau> Is the "unless there are special resolutions" a requirement of CAV?
[21:12] <Bduke> Yes
[21:12] <cartmanau> im happy then
[21:12] <cartmanau> proxies are allowed so it allows for inclusion
[21:12] <pfctdayelise> sounds good. what is special resolutions again? changing the constitution?
[21:12] <cartmanau> pretty much anything that is extraordinary business at a GM
[21:13] <cartmanau> pretty much changing the rules, expulsion, etc
[21:13] <Angela> It would be useful to have a page on the wiki explaining things like "Special Resolutions"
[21:13] <Bduke> Special Res- chnage nmae, rules, statement of aims; amalgamate with another ASSOCIATION OF WIND UP. tHATS ALL
[21:13] <Angela> we'd better make sure we get the rules right now then so we don't need any Special Resolutions later :)
[21:13] <pfctdayelise> we don't allow mail votes but we allow proxies?
[21:14] <cartmanau> Angela: I agree
[21:14] <pfctdayelise> is there an option to now allow proxies?
[21:14] <Bduke> Ugh. Sorry about that. It is in fact sheet 9 that you can get of the Vic Consumers Affairs page
[21:14] <cartmanau> Bduke: thanks, it was my understanding (based on NSW law) that it was any business other than the ceritification of the annual report and election of committee members
[21:14] <Bduke> Proxies is clause 19 of the model rules - we have not proposed change
[21:15] <cartmanau> I propose we do not change, if we cant have internet based meetings we have to allow people to vote somehow
[21:15] <pfctdayelise> mail votes??
[21:15] <cartmanau> I dont like saying "you cant get to the meeting, u cant have a say"
[21:15] <pfctdayelise> if it's the default then ok, but i just had a bad experience with an org using proxies kinda like stacking
[21:16] <Angela> could we add that as an option. surely if proxies are allowed, mail votes could be allowed too?
[21:16] <cartmanau> Brianna: something I overlooked but something I agree with to an extent
[21:16] <Bduke> Nathan. No, it is these important chnages to the main structure. Changing name, rules or aims. Winding up or amalgamating
[21:16] <cartmanau> Bduke: No problems, as I said it was my understanding that anything which would cause a special general meeting is a special resolution. Im happy :)
[21:17] <Bduke> We need proxies and teleconferencing to get a good turn out what is rally a boring meeting
[21:17] <cartmanau> We aren't there yet but there seems to be some issues with voting
[21:17] <TimStarling> hi
[21:17] <Angela> we're also going to need instructions for members on how they can use proxies before we have the first meeting. I'd like to make this inclusive as possible
[21:17] <Giggy> hey TimStarling & WWGB
[21:18] <cartmanau> I want inclusivitiy, which is why I wan't for exclusively in person meetings
[21:18] <pfctdayelise> realistically, you make the informal everydady stuff inclusive, rather than the formal once a year stuff, no?
[21:18] <Bduke> Proxy form is one of the appendices. It is the job of the secretary to send that out with explanation
[21:18] <pfctdayelise> and you can't legislate that
[21:19] <Angela> Bduke: ok, that sounds good
[21:19] <cartmanau> the formal stuff is just as important to be inclusive
[21:19] <cartmanau> yes that point is fine :)
[21:19] <Bduke> Brianna. legislate what?
[21:19] <jayvdb> for the late arrivals, we are currently discussing section 9 and 10 of Wikimedia Australia/Draft Rules of Association for Victoria 2; we are going through the red parts in order
[21:19] <pfctdayelise> you can't legislate for the comm to be welcoming and inclusive as they do their weekly business. all you can do is vote them out at the end of the term if they're not.
[21:20] <cartmanau> we aren't talking about the committee though
[21:20] <cartmanau> we are talking about meetings of the general membership
[21:20] <Bduke> the comm can use IRC if the registrar agrees
[21:20] <pfctdayelise> i mean general membership to the comm
[21:20] <cartmanau> Brianna: I dont follow
[21:21] <pfctdayelise> realistically, mostdiscussion is going to continue on mailing lists, no? not face to face meetings
[21:21] <cartmanau> Brianna: yes
[21:21] <cartmanau> Brianna: but we have to have one AGM a year
[21:21] <pfctdayelise> AGMs don't generally decide small things... they decide big things... and you trust the comm to fill in the details.
[21:21] <pfctdayelise> i know
[21:21] <cartmanau> Brianna: I want that to be inclusive
[21:21] <pfctdayelise> i'm not saying don't make the agm be inclusive
[21:22] <cartmanau> pfctdayelise: realistically, you make the informal everydady stuff inclusive, rather than the formal once a year stuff, no? <--- im confused
[21:22] <pfctdayelise> i guess i'm just making the point that probably doesn't have as much impact as having a comm that is day to day inclusive
[21:22] <Bduke> AGM - every year within some weeks of end of financial year
[21:22] <pfctdayelise> but this is perhaps irrelevant, so let's go back to discussing proxies...
[21:23] <cartmanau> Brianna: I am just trying to understand where u are coming from :)
[21:23] * Spebi silently lols
[21:23] <pfctdayelise> nevermind, not important to the current point... let's carry on...
[21:24] <cartmanau> Do we move on to 16 or look at the proxy issue?
[21:24] <pfctdayelise> no, if proxy is default, let's keep it
[21:24] <Bduke> Clauses 16 and 20 have a green clause. My proposal is that we remove these and have no age discrimination. It is not required.
[21:25] <cartmanau> I agree, I think we are sensible enough about it
[21:25] <Angela> I agree on the first one, not on the second
[21:25] <cartmanau> Brianna: default isn't always the best
[21:25] <Angela> the officers have a legal responsibility, and I don't think it makes sense to assign such responsibility to people under 18
[21:25] <pfctdayelise> hmm
[21:25] <Angela> I'm happy for them to be members and to vote, but being part of the committee is different
[21:26] * pfctdayelise imagines WMA run by fifteen year olds
[21:26] <Bduke> Angela. Why. the committee can act legally even if some of its members can not
[21:26] <cartmanau> Angela: In NSW you cant have under 18 committee members afaik
[21:26] <Bduke> Does WMA have an age limit ?
[21:26] <cartmanau> Angela: victoria is more flexible, but are we likely to elect under 18s to the committee
[21:26] <jayvdb> I think underage committee members is a can of worms best left shut
[21:27] <zero1328> Do we really need a rule to specify it, though? I think we can judge for ourselves without one.. and it would give us a bit of legroom
[21:27] <zero1328> A slim possibility is still a possibility
[21:27] <pfctdayelise> what if we made it 16?
[21:28] <jayvdb> voting is one thing; but putting responsibility of real-world organisations on the shoulders of underage people that we may not see often in real life is an issue.
[21:28] <cartmanau> makes no difference to the legal argument
[21:28] <Mike42> 16 would make more sense IMO
[21:28] <cartmanau> a 16yo is still not an adult
[21:28] <Angela> don't think about today's situation - think about WMAU in 10 years time when we're handling a lot of money - should someone underage be responsible for that? What if the chapter is taken to court (as Wikimedia Germany has been)? Can underage people be held responsible?
[21:28] <Mike42> as long as there isn't anything that forces us to set the bar at 18
[21:28] <pfctdayelise> well, the responsibility is of the whole comm, not just one person, isn't it?
[21:28] <jayvdb> 16yo are given limited legal control over their own lives
[21:28] <jayvdb> I would be happy with 16
[21:29] <cartmanau> if you are going to restrict age on the legal argument then it should be 18
[21:29] <Bduke> The only restriction in the Vic act is that the Public Officer has to be 18 or over
[21:29] <pfctdayelise> we could restrict just the treasurer?
[21:30] * Giggy would be happy with 16
[21:30] <cartmanau> Brianna: I think if you restrict one executive then you should restrict all of them
[21:30] <Giggy> ironically
[21:30] <Bduke> We could just restrict Officers and not ordinary committee members
[21:30] <Angela> I'd be ok with that as a compromise
[21:30] <pfctdayelise> Officers is like executive committee? prez, vice prez, sec, treasurer?
[21:30] <pfctdayelise> i like that idea
[21:30] <cartmanau> Brian: I was going to just suggest that
[21:30] <zero1328> Sounds good
[21:30] <zero1328> I was about to suggest it too
[21:31] <cartmanau> Brian: It allows us to have 2 ordinary members of any age, and the executives can only be adults
[21:31] * Giggy huggles Lankiveil
[21:31] <Mike42> that sounds like a good idea to me
[21:31] <Bduke> OK, so we modify 20.3 and remove 16.1 (renumbering). Is that right?
[21:31] <cartmanau> yes
[21:32] <jayvdb> and the wording of 20.3 ?
[21:32] <pfctdayelise> remove " or as ordinary members"
[21:32] <cartmanau> something like "Only members over the age of 18 may serve as officers of the Association"
[21:32] <Mike42> yes
[21:33] <jayvdb> sounds good.
[21:33] <WWGB> Looks good to me
[21:33] <zero1328> hrm :/ I think other people have problems with Daylight time like me.. you're a half hour late in the meeting
[21:34] <Giggy> :)
[21:34] <Bduke> 25.3 is the difficult one. We clearly want it. It is not prohibited by the Act, but they might disallow it
[21:34] <cartmanau> Leave it and see what happens
[21:34] <jayvdb> Bduke: could we make it less reaching? I suggest dropping the last part: or other appropriate internet mechanisms.
[21:34] <pfctdayelise> Bduke: we won't know until we try, is that it?
[21:35] <jayvdb> that part will mean that they dont know what possible methods we might be thinking of
[21:35] <pfctdayelise> meetings ofthe committee... i didn't realise the model rules forced the COMMITTEE to meet
[21:35] <Bduke> If something all singing and dancing replaces IRC we would have to pay $110 ro chnage the rules
[21:36] <pfctdayelise> does teleconferencing include VoIP?
[21:36] <cartmanau> Brianna: NSW requires them to meet 4 times a year
[21:36] <pfctdayelise> just add voip i reckon
[21:36] <Bduke> The officers have to interact
[21:36] <cartmanau> I think we leave it as is and see what happens
[21:37] <zero1328> VoIP is essentially internet teleconferencing, so I don't think we need to specify VoIP
[21:37] <Angela> I don't think there's any problem with at least 3 meetings a year. The Wikimedia Board of Trustees used to try and meet every month, even if not always for an "official" meeting
[21:37] <pfctdayelise> i don't think there's a problem with it, i'm just surprised to see it all. no problem...
[21:38] <Bduke> VOIP - is that Voice over internet protocols as we need to spell it out
[21:38] <cartmanau> Angela: The committee needs to meet regularly. How do our office holders all know what is happening and how else do we document this
[21:38] <cartmanau> Brian: I think "other internet mechanisms" covers this
[21:38] <Angela> yes, agreed
[21:38] <pfctdayelise> cartmanau: not every meeting needs to be a formal one!
[21:38] <WWGB> "all" is absolute, "may" is conditional ... why not drop the first word?
[21:38] <cartmanau> Brianna: When you are talking about a committee one yes it does, it has to have minutes
[21:39] <Bduke> informal meetings are likley to lead to stuff that gets minuted later at a formal one
[21:39] <cartmanau> Brianna: Minutes become legal documents, certifying that this happened at a meeting
[21:39] <cartmanau> Brian: Exactly
[21:39] <pfctdayelise> you can minute a meeting without it being a formal one (formal==meets rules requirements)
[21:39] <cartmanau> The rules aren't concerned with informal meetings
[21:39] <cartmanau> Brianna: exactly :)
[21:40] <Angela> if it's on irc, you can just log the whole thing which is much better. official minutes tend to be heavily censored
[21:40] <cartmanau> but chances are an informal meeting is worth little compared to a formal one
[21:40] <cartmanau> Angela: true too
[21:40] <Angela> informal meetings are essential for the day to day running of things. I don't think they're worthless at all
[21:40] <Angela> especially now when we have no staff to do that day-to-day stuff
[21:41] <cartmanau> Legally they are, I agree that they are valuable
[21:41] <pfctdayelise> right
[21:41] <Bduke> Are we leaving25.3 as is or adding VOIP?
[21:41] <cartmanau> But if someone comes along and says ok this happened, the committee says "oh we agreed to that at this informal meeting"
[21:41] <jayvdb> Bduke: I agree with WWGB. "All" should be dropped.
[21:41] <cartmanau> informal meetings are a communication tool
[21:41] <Angela> Bduke: I think they're more likely to accept it if we don't confuse them with stuff like voip (which I think is covered by internet and teleconferencing anyway)
[21:42] <cartmanau> I dont want to add VOIP, leave as is
[21:42] <cartmanau> chances are the person who approves this isn't a technical person
[21:42] <zero1328> I alreadt said, Internet teleconferencing is essentially VoIP
[21:42] <zero1328> We don't need more complexity
[21:42] <Bduke> OK remove "All" but the "may" indicates that we can have normal meetings.
[21:42] <cartmanau> keep it simple
[21:42] <Lankiveil> I agree with Angela, "VOIP" will only hold things up while the poor guy who has to rubberstamp the constitution figures out what it means
[21:43] <cartmanau> Brian: I agree, leaves it flexible
[21:43] <jayvdb> can we also drop "or other appropriate internet mechanisms" - it's open ended which will give them reason to pause.
[21:43] <pfctdayelise> ack jayvdb
[21:44] <Angela> mybe reword it to say ' All meetings of the Committee may be held by teleconferencing, or over the internet'
[21:44] <Angela> that covers irc, plus IM or whatever else we might use
[21:44] <pfctdayelise> and/or?
[21:44] <Bduke> I think not for the reason I gave earlier. IRC may be called something else in 5 years.
[21:44] <jayvdb> Bduke: its name hasnt changed in a long time
[21:44] <WWGB> I like Angela's suggestion
[21:44] <cartmanau> I support Angela's suggestion
[21:44] <Mike42> same here
[21:44] <cartmanau> It's simple for a layperson
[21:45] <Bduke> Not over the internet. That will indicate it is notin real time, like e-mail etc. We could use e-mail but confirm it in real time
[21:45] <cartmanau> It gives flexibility (which we all know excites me :p)
[21:45] <pfctdayelise> real-time internet communication? :)
[21:45] <cartmanau> If we are going to have standing orders for this and that why cant this be a standing order saying IRC, VOIP etc
[21:45] <jayvdb> and IM is usually only involving two people.
[21:46] <Lankiveil> pfctdayelise: I like that wording
[21:46] <cartmanau> I like Brianna's wording too :)
[21:46] <Bduke> real time. Like now. we are sort of talking, not like post or e-mail
[21:46] <pfctdayelise> real-time internet-based communication
[21:46] <Mike42> I like that
[21:47] <jayvdb> I'm happy with that.
[21:47] <Angela> 'All meetings of the Committee may be held by teleconferencing, and/or by real-time internet communication'
[21:47] <cartmanau> im happy with it too
[21:47] <Angela> me too
[21:47] <WWGB> agreed
[21:47] <cartmanau> Angela: add based after internet and we are sweet
[21:47] <Angela> 'All meetings of the Committee may be held by teleconferencing, and/or by real-time internet-based communication'
[21:47] <zero1328> I'm not fond of fancy text, but if this'll make people understand it, then I'll agree to
[21:47] <Cain> I agree
[21:48] <Lankiveil> agreed
[21:48] <cartmanau> we need to make it easy for the registrar to understand
[21:49] <pfctdayelise> Brian, what do you think?
[21:49] <cartmanau> He has added it: 25.3 All meetings of the Committee may be held by teleconferencing, and/or by real-time internet-based communications.
[21:49] <Bduke> OK, that is edited into the draft along with the earlier changes. I'm happy
[21:50] <zero1328> I hate daylight savings!
[21:50] <enochlau> sorry im late
[21:50] <cartmanau> Hey :)
[21:50] <enochlau> has everything happened already?
[21:50] <zero1328> oh, you were just late
[21:50] <cartmanau> not everything
[21:50] <Bduke> clause 29 is from Nathan
[21:50] <zero1328> I think we're over halfway done
[21:50] <enochlau> ok
[21:51] <WWGB> Re 25.3, I thought "All" was deleted?
[21:51] <cartmanau> Brian: I am happy to remove it if we aren't doing internet GMs
[21:51] <cartmanau> oh derr
[21:51] <cartmanau> I need to read it
[21:51] <cartmanau> <---- tired
[21:51] <Angela> for 29.3, I think it should apply even to people meeting in real life, not just those participating on the internet since in some cases, there could be a committee member that no one has met before.
[21:52] <zero1328> lets see.. 29.3, how would this verification work?
[21:52] <pfctdayelise> is 29.3 being added or removed?
[21:52] <cartmanau> for internet meetings mainly, you would have to prove u are who u are meant to be. e.g. by IP address or the like
[21:52] <zero1328> Uh, we're in the middle of talking about it, brianna
[21:52] <cartmanau> Brianna: added
[21:52] <Angela> or you could edit on wikipedia under your username to say it's you in the irc channel
[21:53] <pfctdayelise> zero1328: i meant compared to the model rules
[21:53] <enochlau> is there a reason why we wouldnt want such a provision?
[21:53] <Angela> adding
[21:53] <pfctdayelise> or we request passworded irc thingies...
[21:53] <jayvdb> Angela: on IRC, our cloaks depend on identites being confirmed
[21:53] <pfctdayelise> and as part of your membership form you specify your irc nick
[21:53] <cartmanau> Angela: I know some of the other chapters have verification procedures, I am not sure how though
[21:54] <zero1328> Ok, so on IRC, it's basically just checking for cloak
[21:54] <Bduke> I think it isjust going tosuggest that what we are doingis dodgy to the Registrar. I think we do not need. The president can always do it anyway ifin doubt.
[21:54] <cartmanau> just making sure a person is who they say they are
[21:54] <cartmanau> Brian: I disagree, I think it makes the registrar see that for internet meetings we are verifying people are who they say they are
[21:55] <enochlau> why would it look dodgy?
[21:55] <jayvdb> for those unfamiliar with IRC, and these cloaks we are talking about. type in /whois jayvdb . it will show you my cloak rather than my internet address.
[21:55] <enochlau> you mean using the word "cloak" in the document?
[21:55] <cartmanau> Brian: I think it could well be changed to mention that for internet-based meetings the person presiding over the meeting.....
[21:55] <enochlau> and when first start on IRC, it seemed complicated to get a cloak
[21:55] <jayvdb> we wouldnt need to explain _how_ the identity is confirmed.
[21:55] <Bduke> Ok, then Nathan but lets leave vague how it is done.
[21:55] <Angela> we don't need to specify how we will verify people, and if it applies to all meetings, not just internet ones, perhaps they won't associte it with that and think internet meetings are dodgy
[21:55] <pfctdayelise> yes
[21:56] <enochlau> yes
[21:56] <Mike42> agree
[21:56] <cartmanau> We dont need to specify how just that we are doing it
[21:56] <zero1328> For people viewing the log later on, the whois shows n=jayvdb@wikimedia/Jayvdb , usually it show the ip address
[21:56] <Angela> The other suggestion I have for 29.3 is to turn the sentence around a bit to make it clear that the voter needs to prove who they are before they vote. Otherwise, the presendent could ask them to verify and they could refuse.
[21:56] <Angela> "Voters may be required to provide verification of identity to the person presiding over the meeting."
[21:56] <cartmanau> I like that
[21:56] <Mike42> sounds good
[21:57] <enochlau> ok
[21:57] <pfctdayelise> support
[21:57] <Bduke> The clause is under committee meeting. We have returning officers appointed by the Secretaru for general meeting
[21:58] <Bduke> It is not just voting. the committee will try to get conseesus and we need to be sure who is helping that process
[21:58] <DarkFalls> What did I miss?
[21:58] * DarkFalls spent the last hour in a phone call to a friend in Paris :-S
[21:58] <Bduke> we are 29.3
[21:58] <Angela> ok, switch voters for members?
[21:59] <Bduke> OK - that is good
[22:00] <cartmanau> yes
[22:00] <enochlau> any other issues for 29.3?
[22:01] <Mike42> none from me
[22:01] <cartmanau> im happy
[22:01] <Bduke> I have edited it in as a choice for now. Shall I delete the original 29.3?
[22:01] <cartmanau> i think so
[22:01] <Angela> I think so
[22:01] <Mike42> yep
[22:01] <zero1328> Lets see.. on 32.4, I'm guessing there isn't much problem with it?
[22:01] <zero1328> What do you think of moving it to 37?
[22:01] <DarkFalls> what does it mean by verification of identity?
[22:02] <Bduke> 32 is the next one. I support move to new clause 37, so delete all red stuff here in 32
[22:02] <enochlau> for section 32, can we have the A in Assets changed to lower case
[22:02] <Angela> 32.4 sounds overly strict to me.
[22:02] <Angela> What about in future when we do hire staff, who are likely to be members of the chapter (not of the committee)? Does 'bona fide compensation for services' cover wages for staff or not?
[22:02] <cartmanau> Angela: How so?
[22:03] <cartmanau> Angela: yes it does
[22:03] <enochlau> do we need "bona fide"?
[22:03] <cartmanau> Angela: if it isn't there don't expect any non-profit status from the ATO
[22:03] <Bduke> verification of identity - satisfy the Presiding Officer
[22:03] * pfctdayelise can hardly imagine us having staff
[22:03] <Mike42> pfctdayelise: Maybe .. some day :)
[22:03] <Angela> Wikimedia Germany has staff. It's not impossible :)
[22:03] <cartmanau> Exactly
[22:04] <zero1328> If the chapter grows enough, we may need to hire some people
[22:04] * jayvdb expects WM-AU to have staff
[22:04] <Mike42> we should certainly allow for it, anyway
[22:04] <zero1328> volunteers can't do it all
[22:04] <Angela> '...or expenses incurred on behalf of the organisation' also sounds strict. How is that defined? What if your expenses are related to a partnership the organization is in - is that still included?
[22:04] <cartmanau> I see 32.4 moving to 37
[22:04] <Bduke> We would probably need to make chnages if we did have staff
[22:04] <cartmanau> with the "and assets deleted from the heading"
[22:04] <Angela> Another example would be using WMAU funds to sponsor people (who may or may not be members) to attend Wikimania. Would they be attending 'on behalf of the organisation'? If not, are we allowed to spend chapter money on that?
[22:05] <Angela> cartmanau: I agree that moving it makes sense
[22:05] <cartmanau> You would be spending money to further the goals of the association
[22:05] <cartmanau> i.e. the social goal
[22:05] <Bduke> indeed
[22:05] <DarkFalls> cartmanau: That's a little too broad.
[22:05] <cartmanau> we can change it
[22:05] <enochlau> but does that mean we can dish out money to *non*-members of the organisation?
[22:06] <cartmanau> example?
[22:06] <Angela> we should if it furthers our goals
[22:06] <Bduke> sponsoring people is like giving prizes etc. Most incorporated bodies do it. Itis covered by the Act I suppose
[22:06] * Giggy is glad and surprised that nobody has said "OMG it's 2000 UTC meeting is over."
[22:06] <Giggy> Well done all
[22:06] <cartmanau> If you are furthering out goals it's OK
[22:07] <enochlau> yeah but i dont see why being a member would suddenly make it _harder_ to get money
[22:07] <cartmanau> if you aren't then it is bad
[22:07] <zero1328> Giggy, you just said it...
[22:07] <Mike42> enochlau: I agree
[22:07] <cartmanau> it isn't making it harder to get money
[22:07] * Giggy slaps zero1328
[22:07] <cartmanau> it's just not distributing "profit" to members
[22:07] <DarkFalls> Bduke: There are good and bad sides to sponsoring...
[22:07] <enochlau> fine, not harder but you're putting an additional restriction
[22:07] <zero1328> Anyway, it's ok to go overtime, this is a very important meeting
[22:07] <cartmanau> no you arent
[22:07] <enochlau> well then we should make it sound like we're not distributing profit
[22:07] <DarkFalls> it'll bring publicity, but can cause a large money loss..
[22:07] <Angela> I think the 2nd part of this sentence conflicts with the first. It's saying that even if you're furthering the goals, you can't give money to members for some useful purpose
[22:07] <enochlau> i didnt get that sense from reading that clause
[22:08] <cartmanau> Angela: hardly
[22:08] <cartmanau> The original version I wrote says
[22:08] <cartmanau> 3.1 The Association shall be a non-profit organisation. Specifically -
[22:08] <cartmanau> (a) The assets and income of the Association shall be applied solely in the furtherance of its statement of purpose.
[22:08] <cartmanau> (b) No portion of the assets or income of the Association shall be distributed directly or indirectly to the members of the Association, except as bona fide compensation for services rendered or expenses incurred on behalf of the Association.
[22:09] <cartmanau> you are saying you cant get paid or be given dividends for being a member
[22:09] <Angela> it might be worth looking at some other non-profits (and other WM chapters) and see how they word this sort of thing. I know it's important, but it feels restrictive the way it is now
[22:09] <enochlau> yes agreed, i understand the goal of the clause, but the wording is confusing
[22:09] <cartmanau> give me 2 seconds
[22:09] <zero1328> The original sounds a little better, to me
[22:10] <Bduke> 35 is related - it is spellign out the Act to convince the tax office
[22:10] <cartmanau> Please see page 8 of the PDF here -
[22:11] <Bduke> 35 - I did not think this was required but now support the red version
[22:12] <Mike42> presumably funds would go straight to Wikimedia proper, right?
[22:12] <cartmanau> as in the WMF?
[22:12] <Bduke> Possibly, if we closed down
[22:12] <pfctdayelise> i think they would have to go to an aus-based org?
[22:12] <Mike42> yes
[22:12] <cartmanau> chances are no
[22:12] <cartmanau> we may be able to get a tax ruling on that down the track
[22:12] <Angela> maybe we need to check if there any rules about sending money overseas on dissolution
[22:13] <enochlau> what are the chances of WMA giving/donating/transferring money to Wikimedia Foundation?
[22:13] <cartmanau> right now it is problematic to send money to another organisation which is overseas
[22:13] <Angela> but it probably doesn't need to be in these rules. It can just say the money will go to a non-profit org, and then later we can find out if that can be WMF or not
[22:13] <cartmanau> it can be done, but i am told it requires approval from the commissioner of taxation
[22:13] <pfctdayelise> ok
[22:13] <cartmanau> right now we dont need to mention sending money to WMF in the rules
[22:14] <jayvdb> as a suggestion, Gutenberg Australia would be a good organisation to donate the money to :-)
[22:14] <enochlau> yeah
[22:14] <pfctdayelise> there is gutenberg aus?! interesting
[22:14] <Mike42> we don't need to cross that bridge yet :)
[22:14] <enochlau> yarr it's like planning for a divorce when you're getting married
[22:14] <Angela> :)
[22:14] <enochlau> let's move on
[22:14] <Bduke> Some incorporated Associations do send money overseas - to pay subs for federated bodies
[22:14] <pfctdayelise> prenup :)
[22:14] <jayvdb> pfctdayelise: yup. they host all the PD-old-70 works that are not PD in the US
[22:15] <cartmanau> Brian: That is more of an incurred expense than sending a donation
[22:15] <Bduke> Moving on, do we accept the red stuff in 35 and move the 32
[22:15] <Bduke> to 37
[22:16] <zero1328> yep
[22:16] <cartmanau> yes
[22:16] <Angela> yes
[22:16] <Mike42> I say yes
[22:16] <pfctdayelise> yes
[22:16] <jayvdb> yes
[22:16] <enochlau> yea
[22:16] <Angela> This wasn't in red, but I think 36.3 is odd.
[22:16] <Angela> "A member may make a copy of any accounts, books, securities and any other relevant documents of the Association."
[22:16] <Angela> Does this mean that anyone joining WMAU can get a copy of confidential information regarding, for example, the real names and addresses of all other members?
[22:17] <cartmanau> Angela: It is a standard inclusion in the model rules
[22:17] <zero1328> If 36.3 is odd, 36.2 is, too
[22:17] <enochlau> i dont think members private details are accounts, books, securities etc
[22:17] <enochlau> isn't it referring mainly to financial transparency?
[22:18] <cartmanau> The member's register is available to anyone
[22:18] <Angela> and does that member's register include private information?
[22:18] <cartmanau> actually my bad it isnt written like that in Victoria
[22:18] <enochlau> in your understanding of these rules, what is covered by these provisions?
[22:18] <jayvdb> cartmanau: how much information must be on the register. addresseses ?
[22:19] <cartmanau> Let me say that I am not 100% certain on this one
[22:19] <Angela> we need to balance transparency with privacy, and handing out member addresses is going too far
[22:19] <zero1328> We may need official confirmation..
[22:19] <cartmanau> In NSW you generally have a clause saying that the member's register, books, etc are available at any time
[22:19] <jayvdb> we can put this one down as an action item to be reviewed over this w/e.
[22:19] <Angela> ok
[22:20] <pfctdayelise> jayvdb: what does that mean?
[22:20] <enochlau> weekend?
[22:20] <jayvdb> pfctdayelise: cartmanau or someone needs to check the Vic rules.
[22:20] * Giggy is outta here. Fun meeting guys :)
[22:20] <cartmanau> yes weekend
[22:20] <Giggy> Will read logs and pretend to be intersted
[22:20] <zero1328> I guess that means we need a followup meeting on Monday then
[22:20] <Angela> yes, agreed. We need more research on what it means before agreeing on that point
[22:20] <pfctdayelise> no...
[22:20] <pfctdayelise> action item? reviewed by who?
[22:20] <pfctdayelise> oh,ok
[22:20] <cartmanau> We need to check what it means
[22:21] <Mike42> seeya Giggy
[22:21] <pfctdayelise> can't we just discuss it on the ml?
[22:21] * Giggy waves to Mike42
[22:21] <zero1328> Hm, yeah, probably
[22:21] <jayvdb> pfctdayelise: yes.
[22:21] <Angela> yes, mailing list would be better. the sydney meetup is on monday
[22:21] <cartmanau> I think mailing list is the way for that one
[22:21] <enochlau> argh! i fly out on sunday :( will miss meetup
[22:21] <cartmanau> Monday is probably going to be difficult for some people
[22:22] <cartmanau> I have to work on Monday else I would be in sydney
[22:22] <cartmanau> it's only 250Km :)
[22:22] <jayvdb> ok. we still have the aims to discuss. pfctdayelise, are you wanting to leave that for the ml?
[22:22] <Bduke> i have added all the chnages. Some please check it. I suggest we rename it now as Draft Riles of WMA
[22:23] <Bduke> Now what about the Aims?
[22:23] <enochlau> I propose Draft *Rules* of WMA :)
[22:23] <pfctdayelise> jayvdb: i don't mind discussing a bit longer if people are up for it
[22:23] <enochlau> What is still left to discuss?
[22:23] <jayvdb> Bduke: Draft *Rules* of *WM-AU*
[22:23] <zero1328> We should try to get the most out of today
[22:23] <DarkFalls> Mike42: You logging this? Because I need to go...
[22:23] <cartmanau> aims i think
[22:23] <Mike42> DarkFalls: Yep
[22:24] <DarkFalls> ...then see you guys later. :)
[22:24] <enochlau> by ebye
[22:24] <cartmanau> nite mate
[22:24] <jayvdb> cya DF
[22:24] <Angela> before we do the aims, I wanted to say something about 21.1
[22:24] <Angela> 4 office holders are listed, and they don't include anyone dealing with the press. For those who didn't see my comment on the talk page, I suggested having the press officer as part of the committee because the press like to talk to "someone official". Having better communications with the press is a significant part of what WMAU should aim to do, so it makes sense for the press officer to be part of the committee and be able to go to the press in their official role as part of the chapter.
[22:25] <jayvdb> we discussed this a little in the last meeting
[22:25] <Bduke> We sort of agreed but thought not specify the Press Officer at this stage. It could be the Sec, or Pres or an ord member
[22:25] <Angela> sorry, I wasn't there at that one
[22:25] <cartmanau> I actually prefer saying that the press officer may or may not be on the committee
[22:25] <Bduke> I'm refering to the list
[22:25] <jayvdb> Angela: Wikimedia_Australia/Meeting_7/Log
[22:26] <Mike42> cartmanau: I think that would be best, personally
[22:26] <pfctdayelise> flexible seems ok to me
[22:26] <enochlau> I don't think they need to be an officer to be "official"
[22:26] <Angela> but can they can called Press Officer if they're not an Officer of the organization?
[22:26] <cartmanau> I raised it as a suggestion but if we are going to say ok no actual press officer we cant say then oh someone on the committee has to be one
[22:26] <pfctdayelise> i doubt press will read our constitution to check how official they are ;)
[22:26] <jayvdb> [20:47:21] <Bduke> Angela has some ideas - I forget what - Press?
[22:27] <Mike42> so would any ordinary member be able to be appointed press [officer or person or whichever other term we want to use]?
[22:27] <enochlau> im confused... is "committee" = all of those 4 officers?
[22:27] <enochlau> or is it wider?
[22:27] <cartmanau> officers plus 2
[22:27] <enochlau> right
[22:27] <pfctdayelise> yes
[22:27] <cartmanau> you have four officers, 2 ordinary member's representatives
[22:27] <Angela> ok, let's just leave it as it is. I guess it can be flexible
[22:27] <cartmanau> we can delegate press
[22:28] <pfctdayelise> now discuss aims?
[22:28] <jayvdb> you have the floor pfctdayelise :-)
[22:28] <cartmanau> yes
[22:28] <pfctdayelise> the first aim should be "To carry out the WMF's vision and mission
[22:28] <enochlau> link please?
[22:28] <pfctdayelise> within Australian territory and within an Australian context" or similar
[22:28] <pfctdayelise> appendix
[22:28] <enochlau> oh ok
[22:29] <Angela> Wikimedia Australia/Draft Rules of Association for Victoria 2#Appendices
[22:29] <pfctdayelise> "To organise and facilitate social functions." - needs qualification
[22:29] <Mike42> I agree. to carry out WMF's vision and mission in an australian context -- sounds good IMO
[22:29] <jayvdb> pfctdayelise: what are you thinking off with "Australian context"
[22:30] <pfctdayelise> "To facilitate research on topics which relate to Australia." - blah. what is this supposed to be about?
[22:30] <cartmanau> I dont afree with that
[22:30] <enochlau> To facilitate research on topics which relate to Australia." -- is this qualified to mean in a wikimedia/free content context?
[22:30] <cartmanau> you are saying we are puppets of the WMF
[22:30] <pfctdayelise> um, we are a chapter
[22:30] <cartmanau> then what is the vision of the foundation (to an outsider)
[22:30] <pfctdayelise> if we don't support their Mission and Vision then what are we doing?
[22:30] <pfctdayelise> they have a vision statement!
[22:31] <pfctdayelise> their mission and vision are both broad. it's not saying we have to agree with every cough and sneeze they make
[22:31] <enochlau> We dont need to be explicit about the vision thing. we can just have it "To promote Wikimedia projects and free content in general in an Ausralian context"
[22:31] <cartmanau> are we going to include their vision statement as another one
[22:31] <enochlau> just change the current first bullet point
[22:31] <pfctdayelise> promoting wikimedia projects is very different to the vision and mission
[22:31] <enochlau> hmm you have a pt
[22:31] <cartmanau> be careful about establishing a relationship between the WMF and WMA too closely
[22:31] <cartmanau> we support WMF morally
[22:31] <pfctdayelise> foundation:Vision
[22:32] <pfctdayelise> foundation:Mission
[22:32] <Angela> the vision is much broader than the projects. eg - distributing wikipedia isn't part of the "wikipedia project", but it is covered by the vision
[22:32] <pfctdayelise> mission and vision are moral.
[22:32] <cartmanau> to a point
[22:32] <cartmanau> Local_chapter_FAQ
[22:32] <pfctdayelise> specifically?
[22:33] <cartmanau> What is the point of having chapters
[22:34] <pfctdayelise> this describes what they do
[22:34] <pfctdayelise> not why they do it
[22:34] <pfctdayelise> "to further the goals of Wikimedia"
[22:34] <pfctdayelise> the goals are informed by the mission and vision
[22:34] <Angela> I think it's more than Mission and Vision we ought to support than the projects. The projects are run by the community, not the WMF, and we have no control over that. We're also not realisticially going to be contributing much financially toward running the projects
[22:34] <pfctdayelise> the point is not to publicise wikipedia for the sake of wikipedia. but because of the wmf mission
[22:34] <cartmanau> Thats completely different to carrying out the WMF's vision
[22:35] <cartmanau> As I said you are then saying our objects are dictated by the foundation
[22:35] <cartmanau> * to enable, assist, promote and promulgate wider participation in the creation, dissemination and expansion of information and educational resources covering the world's knowledge and languages to all persons, everywhere;
[22:35] <cartmanau> * to further the development of electronic, printed, and other resources required to support such participation;
[22:35] <Bduke> I think we need to look at what the UK and other chapters do
[22:35] <cartmanau> * to produce, publish and develop, or cause to be produced, published and developed, information resources, whether in printed, electronic, or other forms;
[22:35] <cartmanau> * to make use of or encourage the use of information resources for the advancement of education;
[22:35] <cartmanau> * to encourage the adoption of practices and policies to widen education, participation and dissemination of information worldwide; and
[22:35] <cartmanau> * to undertake and carry on any other business which may seem to the Company capable of being conveniently carried on in connection with any of the above specified objects, or calculated directly or indirectly to enhance the value of or render profitable any of the Company's property or rights.
[22:35] <jayvdb> I agree with the need to support the Mission and Vision of the WMF. the projects change, and new ones are added. we need to flow with the WMF's direction.
[22:35] <cartmanau> ooops flooded
[22:35] <pfctdayelise> in the broadest possible sense they are
[22:35] <cartmanau> that's UK's objects
[22:36] <cartmanau> Sweden: Wikimedia Sverige is a non-profit association based in Sweden, independent of political parties and religious affiliations. The association shall work towards making knowledge freely accessible to all humans, especially by supporting the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The association shall also work to spread knowledge about the these projects, promote their use, and support technology essential for them.
[22:36] <enochlau> interesting: "or calculated directly or indirectly to enhance the value of or render profitable any of the Company's property or rights."
[22:36] <enochlau> that might allow us to put spare money in an investment fund or something
[22:36] <enochlau> and grow it
[22:36] <jayvdb> I also object to "To facilitate research on topics which relate to Australia." - that is a wiki*P*edia specific objective
[22:37] <Bduke> why?
[22:37] <cartmanau> jayvdb: Don't wikinewsies research?
[22:37] <enochlau> not necessarily, it could be related to the production of textbooks?
[22:37] <cartmanau> jayvdb: I know I do, especially with OR
[22:37] <pfctdayelise> it's too broad. what research? why? random academics??
[22:37] <Angela> I think we need to support more than "the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation". We need to help the WMF meet their broader goals - and those extend beyond the projects
[22:38] <enochlau> i dont think we should be tied down to specifics, and there's not much harm in making the aims broader/
[22:38] <jayvdb> cartmanau: it i still not applicable to many other projects. wikisource and commons esp. are not *research*
[22:38] <enochlau> so why not make it the visions and aims, and not just the projects?
[22:38] <cartmanau> Angela: I agree but to say we "carry out the WMF's vision"
[22:38] <cartmanau> jayvdb: then we dont do it for those projects
[22:38] <cartmanau> That is creating too strong of a relationship between the two organisations
[22:38] <jayvdb> cartmanau: then that is a problem.
[22:38] <Angela> as one of our aims, yes we should "carry out the WMF's vision". that doesn't have to be our *only* aim though
[22:38] <pfctdayelise> the vision is this: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
[22:38] <pfctdayelise> that is like the least binding thing ever
[22:39] <cartmanau> why cant we write that
[22:39] <enochlau> i think the research one there is valuable. we dont just help with how the content is managed (wikis, open content) but produce some of it
[22:39] <enochlau> that would be nice
[22:39] <cartmanau> not like saying "carry out the WMF's vision"
[22:39] <Bduke> I think we need to take this to the e-mail list for a few days discussion and call it a day here
[22:39] <cartmanau> you are saying that we do what the foundation do
[22:39] <pfctdayelise> um, how don't we?
[22:39] <jayvdb> I see our purpose is to be a means of facilitating the information getting out to the world.
[22:39] <cartmanau> then the foundation changes it's vision and automatically this changes our objects which is likely to be illegal udner the act
[22:39] <jayvdb> we shouldnt be funding the information being created.
[22:39] <enochlau> cartmanau: would you object if we copied verbatim the vision and mission from the WMF instead of the current proposal?
[22:39] <Angela> agree with Bduke. online meetings over 90 minutes are a bad idea.
[22:40] <cartmanau> enoch: not at all
[22:40] <enochlau> so it's the direct reference that you object to?
[22:40] <cartmanau> enoch: yes
[22:40] <enochlau> and you're afraid that we look like puppets?
[22:40] <pfctdayelise> what??
[22:40] <enochlau> i dont think that it's much of a concern
[22:40] <cartmanau> enoch: I'm afraid there is a legal issue
[22:40] <enochlau> we are explicitly going to be a chapter anyway
[22:40] <pfctdayelise> what legal concern?
[22:40] <jayvdb> legally we are a separate entity.
[22:40] <cartmanau> enoch: u cant have something as important as an aim in the rules linked to something which is changed by an outside organisation
[22:41] <pfctdayelise> aim in the appendix.
[22:41] <cartmanau> its saying - we dont have aims, we just do what they say
[22:41] <cartmanau> which is in the rules
[22:41] <jayvdb> I like the Swedish statement of aims
[22:41] <cartmanau> which can only be changed by the general membership
[22:41] <enochlau> what's in the swedish one?
[22:41] <cartmanau> I copied it here before
[22:41] <cartmanau> but it's: Wikimedia Sverige is a non-profit association based in Sweden, independent of political parties and religious affiliations. The association shall work towards making knowledge freely accessible to all humans, especially by supporting the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The association shall also work to spread knowledge about the these projects, promote their use, and support technology essential for them.
[22:42] <zero1328> Unless we cool our heads a little, I suggest we call it a day and sleep on it.
[22:42] <jayvdb> their use of "projects" is less emphasised
[22:42] <cartmanau> I like it too, it's simple and concise
[22:42] <pfctdayelise> that is not bad
[22:42] <enochlau> yes it's not bad
[22:42] <enochlau> it incorporates a bit of bnoth - i like
[22:42] <Mike42> same
[22:43] <Lankiveil> I like it too. Not overly complicated, but sums up what it is that we do
[22:43] <Lankiveil> or would like to do
[22:43] <jayvdb> ok, can run with it; we can use it as the basis of further discussion and improvements.
[22:43] <enochlau> yep
[22:43] <jayvdb> i.e. via email
[22:43] <enochlau> what's the timeframe from here?
[22:43] <jayvdb> and wrap up this meeting.
[22:43] <enochlau> next meeting is when? when are we submitting documentation?
[22:43] <Angela> maybe meet again in a week to finalise what we discuss on the mailing list over the next few days?
[22:44] <Mike42> yes I agree
[22:44] <jayvdb> ideally we want something pretty concrete for the two meetups to discuss.
[22:44] <cartmanau> I will add to the talk page that we need to work on the aims, possibly borrowing from our swiss friends
[22:44] <zero1328> Next Friday or Saturday then
[22:44] <Mike42> we need to meet again soon, the gaps between meetings really slow things down
[22:44] <enochlau> i'll be on holidays, probably no internet access :( you guys have fun!
[22:44] <pfctdayelise> NOT THE WEEKEND
[22:44] <cartmanau> soon
[22:44] <enochlau> LOL
[22:44] <jayvdb> pfctdayelise: ;-)
[22:44] <cartmanau> I agree not the weekend
[22:44] <enochlau> let's not have them on friday nights either
[22:44] <pfctdayelise> friday night=weekend!
[22:44] <pfctdayelise> how about thurs?
[22:45] <Mike42> I think I can do thurs
[22:45] <jayvdb> no. Dexter is on
[22:45] <zero1328> well, I can go with any day
[22:45] <Bduke> let us discuss on the list
[22:45] <jayvdb> :-)
[22:45] <Mike42> just not saturday, I think
[22:45] <Mike42> ok
[22:45] <Mike42> :)
[22:45] <zero1328> I'm available for most of the time..
[22:45] <cartmanau> I agree
[22:45] <cartmanau> Maybe a Monday?
[22:45] <cartmanau> we should be all fresh from the weekend then
[22:45] <zero1328> I think there's problems with Monday
[22:45] <pfctdayelise> monday week?
[22:45] <enochlau> what's wrong with mondays?
[22:45] <zero1328> Something about a Sydney meetup? can't remember
[22:46] <enochlau> ohh
[22:46] <enochlau> that's the coming monday
[22:46] <zero1328> Otherwise a followup on Monday is ok
[22:46] <enochlau> wont conflict, dont worry
[22:46] <pfctdayelise> monday is BDO :(
[22:47] <enochlau> sydney meetups are traditionally pretty light on getting Real Work done anyway.
[22:47] <cartmanau> Let's figure it out on the list
[22:47] <enochlau> cartmanau: just wondering, have you ever been to a sydney meetup?
[22:47] <cartmanau> enochlau: never
[22:47] <cartmanau> enochlau: I was unable to travel until probably 12 months ago
[22:47] <zero1328> We should probably decide now.. we have to be concrete
[22:48] <enochlau> if you guys leave it until wednesday week, i can participate :P
[22:48] <jayvdb> meeting over?
[22:48] <pfctdayelise> can't we discuss the rest on ml?
[22:48] <enochlau> can we set a provisional date?
[22:48] <cartmanau> as in feb 7?
[22:49] <Mike42> provisionally? I say next thursday evening 9pm AEDT
[22:49] <enochlau> im back in sydney february 6
[22:49] <Mike42> that's Feb 7.
[22:49] <cartmanau> next thursday is the 30th
[22:49] <enochlau> next thursday is 31st
[22:49] <enochlau> i dont know what calendars you all use
[22:49] <zero1328> last years, I guess
[22:49] <Mike42> apparently I have no concept of time :P
[22:49] <cartmanau> maybe we need a wikidar
[22:50] <zero1328> Ok, lets just say Monday next week, ok?
[22:50] <enochlau> yes, the calendar you can edit. wonderful.
[22:50] <zero1328> Like the original proposal from who knows when
[22:50] * Angela votes for Feb 7.
[22:50] <zero1328> Collect info on the weekend and have a followup meeting
[22:50] * enochlau votes for Feb 6 or 7
[22:50] * Mike42 votes for feb 7 as well. which is a thursday, at least. if not next thursday
[22:50] <cartmanau> i think feb 7 too
[22:51] <pfctdayelise> sounds fine
[22:51] <cartmanau> gives us time for us to get things done
[22:51] <zero1328> ok, nevermind, I'll just go with whatever, really
[22:51] <Mike42> ok. can we call this meeting closed then?
[22:51] <Bduke> I will try to fit in. I'm off. I think it has been a good meeting, but we time to think now about the remaining issues. Goodnight, all
[22:51] <enochlau> yep closed
[22:51] <cartmanau> unfortunately my next week will suck with school going back means work will be hell
[22:51] <cartmanau> closed :)
[22:51] <pfctdayelise> thanks brian!
[22:51] <enochlau> thanks everyone
[22:51] <jayvdb> good. cya Brian. im also off for a bit.
[22:51] <zero1328> g'night, all
[22:51] <cartmanau> thanks all, im really excited that we are getting somewhere
[22:51] <enochlau> bye bye
[22:51] <Mike42> :)
[22:51] <Mike42> bye everyone
[22:52] <cartmanau> nite all
[22:52] <Chuq> sorry guys
[22:52] <cartmanau> np
[22:52] <Chuq> i'm massively late, but just registereing my attendance :P