Wikipedia talk:Community Justice/Meeting

message: Community Justice First Meeting
As Community Justice breaks 20 members, I believe it's a good time to review the progress of the organisation and our contributions.
It is important we put more towards out goals and more to complete the tasks.
This meeting shall have no fixed times, though it will have to end by Saturday 15th April. Computerjoe's talk 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

message: ==== Why It Is Important ====
Publicity for this organisation is important as it's the best way for people to encourage further civility. As more members join, more members link to us, which creates more publicity. Relative to WP:ESP, we are still small. As we grow, we grow further. If the growth slows, it slows further. It is important to keep growth going. Computerjoe's talk 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to say completely the opposite, now is the perfect time to add a message about us onto the Community Portal, as we are now growing in size and have a good clear framework of policies and aims. Indeed it would be very good to get people invovled in this meeting, who are new members thanks to a link off the Community Portal. --Wisden17 17:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Now we are larger, we will be notice more when listed. I also think that we should work with WP:ESP to help promote our goal (civility) using their medium (the community and WP's members) - • The Giant Puffin • 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, though I don't want to merge into Esperenza. Our goals slightly differ. Computerjoe's talk 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I dont think a merger would work. We should just keep in contact with them, and just work in harmony etc. - • The Giant Puffin • 14:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publicity 

message: Publicity for this organisation is important as it's the best way for people to encourage further civility. As more members join, more members link to us, which creates more publicity. Relative to WP:ESP, we are still small. As we grow, we grow further. If the growth slows, it slows further. It is important to keep growth going. Computerjoe's talk 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why It Is Important 

message: Two ways we could've generated publicity was the Wikipedia:Community Portal and Wikipedia:Signpost. However, we should've really done this nearer the start. Do you think it's too late to add ourselves, somehow, to either of these? Computerjoe's talk 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to say completely the opposite, now is the perfect time to add a message about us onto the Community Portal, as we are now growing in size and have a good clear framework of policies and aims. Indeed it would be very good to get people invovled in this meeting, who are new members thanks to a link off the Community Portal. --Wisden17 17:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Now we are larger, we will be notice more when listed. I also think that we should work with WP:ESP to help promote our goal (civility) using their medium (the community and WP's members) - • The Giant Puffin • 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, though I don't want to merge into Esperenza. Our goals slightly differ. Computerjoe's talk 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I dont think a merger would work. We should just keep in contact with them, and just work in harmony etc. - • The Giant Puffin • 14:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Gain It 

message: ==== Need for elections ====
In my view it is important to have elections as different members have different views in which direction the organisation should go. It is important that our member's views are represented. Computerjoe's talk 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur whole-heartedly. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Same here. (^'-')^ Covington 21:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should stick with the 30 member mark, or perhaps 25. However, I would support an election now, if we were certain all members would vote and are active enough (or at least mointor CJ) to know who to vote for - • The Giant Puffin • 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you there. Most members are active, but quite a few are on wikibreaks. Perhaps we could have some sort of eligibility? Perhaps something such as 2 edits to WP:CJ, WT:CJ or another CJ-related page? Computerjoe's talk 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should prepare the elections now, and start the voting as soon as we hit 30 users. I've noticed that newer users are typically more active, so we would probably have more voters. - Pureblade | Θ 20:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think we should wait for one more opinion to gain some kind of consensus. Computerjoe's talk 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, thirty members sounds good. What should the criteria, if any, be? --Osbus 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the criteria should be at least three edits to CJ page, since one of them was the sign-up, and at least 300 edits, to answer my own question. Later, the standards might increase as we get more members, but for now, I think this sounds good. --Osbus 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just the CJ page, also the WT pages and templates. Computerjoe's talk 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The elegibility criteria sound fine to me. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections 

message: In my view it is important to have elections as different members have different views in which direction the organisation should go. It is important that our member's views are represented. Computerjoe's talk 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur whole-heartedly. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Same here. (^'-')^ Covington 21:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for elections 

message: I think elections should be ASAP. However, many of our councillors and members believe the organisation doesn't have enough members to gain a clear consensus. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Computerjoe's talk 16:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should stick with the 30 member mark, or perhaps 25. However, I would support an election now, if we were certain all members would vote and are active enough (or at least mointor CJ) to know who to vote for - • The Giant Puffin • 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you there. Most members are active, but quite a few are on wikibreaks. Perhaps we could have some sort of eligibility? Perhaps something such as 2 edits to WP:CJ, WT:CJ or another CJ-related page? Computerjoe's talk 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should prepare the elections now, and start the voting as soon as we hit 30 users. I've noticed that newer users are typically more active, so we would probably have more voters. - Pureblade | Θ 20:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think we should wait for one more opinion to gain some kind of consensus. Computerjoe's talk 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, thirty members sounds good. What should the criteria, if any, be? --Osbus 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the criteria should be at least three edits to CJ page, since one of them was the sign-up, and at least 300 edits, to answer my own question. Later, the standards might increase as we get more members, but for now, I think this sounds good. --Osbus 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just the CJ page, also the WT pages and templates. Computerjoe's talk 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The elegibility criteria sound fine to me. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When?