[WE Council] Voting now active on amendment to 3rd party media

Skip to first unread message

Wayne Mackintosh

May 12, 2010, 8:59:03 PM5/12/10
to wikieducator-co...@googlegroups.com
Hi Everyone,

Voting is now active on a proposed amendment on embedding 3rd party media.

It is unfortunate that the proposer and seconder did not first suggest the proposed amendment in draft form on Straw Dog 3 thus affording council members the opportunity to comment on the revisions before calling the vote. This notwithstanding a lively discussion aimed at achieving a consensus view and circumventing an approved agenda item to discuss guidelines for ancillary web-services.  However, every member of Council is free to call a vote.

Please visit the page and cast your votes:



Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Board of Directors, OER Foundation.
Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator, www.wikieducator.org
Mobile +64 21 2436 380
User Page: http://wikieducator.org/User:Mackiwg
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator Community Council" group.
To post to this group, send email to wikieducator-co...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-communit...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator-community-council?hl=en.

Sanjaya Mishra

May 13, 2010, 1:49:18 AM5/13/10
to wikieducator-co...@googlegroups.com
Dear WCC members,
The wiki discussion on third party media is getting more and more confused. I am wondering where to comment now. For example, the disapproval I gave is for the amendment or for the motion is not clear, as both were on table. While I intend to disapprove the amendment, and voted for the motion, I think we only have to go slow on this issue, as it is as free culture is a matter of passion for all of us. The difference is probably on the implementation: whether immediate without checks and balance, and we develop as we progress or develop the policies and appropriate technology for checks, and implement after a  trial period. Personally, I will go with the later, and request all to frame a motion to that effect with a timeline so that this functionality is available soon.
I personally think there is a need to educate users on use of third party media, particularly why of it and how not to violate rules and follow open formats. For example, the use of MP3 in wikieducator, I am not sure of the legal issues of its use in WikiEd. As it is a proprietary format, who is responsible for uploading of the MP3 file. Can we pass this to the user? If so, doe it come under violation, as the user is not gaining any financial benefits? The issues involved are more of education first...
Please take appropriate decision quickly as time is short, and I understand we can't prolong this discussion further.
with regards, Sanjaya

Sanjaya Mishra, PhD
Reader in Distance Education
Staff Training and Research
Institute of Distance Education
Indira Gandhi National Open University
Maidan Garhi, New Delhi 110068
Alternate email: sanjay...@hotmail.com
My blog: http://teachknowlogist.blogspot.com
My websiteL http://www.learningindia.net/sm/CV.htm

Wayne Mackintosh

May 13, 2010, 3:17:08 AM5/13/10
to wikieducator-co...@googlegroups.com
Hi Sanjaya,

The procedure in this instance is confusing, due to motions that were withdrawn in contravention of procedure and subsequent motions that were tabled out of order etc. Regarding your point of information:

  • The original motion was tabled
  • You seconded the original motion which opens the debate, the process for the meeting to discuss the motion on the table
  • The motion was then withdrawn after the motion was seconded which procedurally was not possible
  • At this point the Chair put the original motion on hold to ensure that proper debate and discussion could take place on the motion in accordance with meeting procedure
  • After placing the motion on hold, a competing motion was tabled. Procedure does not permit two motions to be tabled at the same time.
  • The Chair requested the meeting to debate the motion on the Straw Dog 3 page as a mechanism to achieve consensus on a complex issue -- a process designed to achieve consensus on the amendment (if any) to the original motion tabled that was on hold.
  • Given the progress on debating the amendments to the original motion (on hold) and suggested guidelines to achieve consensus for tabling an amendment (or calling the vote), the Chair lifted the hold on the original motion.
  • An amendment (which was not debated) was tabled by the proposer, seconded and two approvals cast before the meeting had the opportunity to debate the amendment.
  • The vote has been called, therefore members of Council will need to decide whether they wish to discuss the motion in accordance with the suggested process (Straw Dog 3) to achieve consensus before the  tabling of the amendment. If so, members must disapprove the amendment now being voted on. If members of the meeting do not wish the meeting to discuss the motion, they must approve the amendment. 
This is an unfortunate development in our attempts to achieve consensus of the amendment currently on the table and being voted on.

I shall assume good faith that the proposer and seconder had not had the opportunity to read:

  • The response from the Chair requesting clarification on a point of information by the proposer before the amendment was tabled.
  • That the proposer and seconder did not have the opportunity to read the email notifications posted to the meeting regarding the process to achieve consensus on the amendment
  • That the proposer and seconder did not have the opportunity to read the procedural complication associated with ancillary web services (which is an approved agenda item yet to be discussed by the meeting). The amendment being voted on will result in ancillary web-services to be activated by the Widgets extension, before the meeting has had a chance to debate these issues.
I see this as a learning opportunity for all involved regarding meeting procedure and how to implement this in an open wiki meeting model.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages