From Wikimedia Canada
Chapters Committee Suggestions
The Canada group came up with the proposed changes:
- Strike anything having to do with regional wings and keep it for further consideration within the chapter (when the chapter has more members) as a policy or bylaw amendment. In short, there would be nothing in the bylaws about regional wings for the time being.
- Same with recognized projects.
- For the quroum, rephrase as follows: 5 members or 10% whichever is greater for member quorum at membership meetings.
- Thank you for the update. I think that taking the opportunity to re-think the exact structure of the regional wings and approved projects is a very good thing. I'm sure you can come to a good working solution, but that might take some time.
- I am very OK with the height of the quorum, but still have some reservations about the exact formulation of the clause regarding the choice of the medium. 9.3: "Meetings shall be conducted electronically through an easily accessible medium, either text-based or teleconference, chosen by the Board of Directors and approved by a quorum of members." - I have heard several different explanations of what this exactly means. I suggest that when you change the height anyway, you also change the formulation here. A possible wording would of more clearity would be: "(...) chosen by the Board of Directors and approved through an online poll amongst the members with the same quorum as required for the actual meeting". This would have the same meaning as what I understood myself to be intended, but is less multi-interpretable. Explanations of the old wording included (and these are not made up by me): "We will just see who shows up and whether that consists of a quorum. If it does, we fulfilled the requirement", "We will start each assemblee if this is the preferred method, and have a vote with the quorum", "We will send out an email, and reactions fore and against are counted and the majority wins (incl. a quorum)" and "We will send out an email, and as soon as 'a quorum' answered positively, irrespective the people against, there is approval". Just to indicate the confusion :) Effeietsanders 14:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can agree with the proposed changes. As Lodewijk suggests, we would really welcome a process explanation on how the format of the meetings are chosen, and also remind that while implementing the above changes you have an opportunity to fix any of the smaller mistakes (typos, inconsistencies, wrong headings) of the documents as well. --Dami 06:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)