Here is the proposed authorisation process for designs, publications and election materials. Thomas Randle and Mozart helped get this together.
https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Design_Authorisation_Process
Have a look and comment. The NC will pass this either at Wednesday night’s NC meeting or before if there isn’t any controversy.
I don’t see a reason to limit who can place their names on materials in the auth tag, it is still approved by the NC. Limiting it to secs/pres doesn’t serve a worthwhile purpose IMO, if any member wants to put their home address on a piece of content, we should let them take that responsibility, +1 for that member’s participation.
What did you intend by this change Mozart? I’m not understanding it.
Updated the page to use the constitutional numbering template. (Do not hardcode numbering.)
It seemed that administrative and public-facing members of the party were best placed to authorise such content, especially as it would have to go through the National Council — if an individual Councillor isn’t willing to put their name on it, it doesn’t bode well.
I honestly do not care enough to oppose a change though.
On the whole I don’t think this process is as clear as it could be and will try to further improve it when I can.
I did not even know this template existed. It was hardcoded like the other authorisation processes to which it will be added.
I have made substantial changes to cull stuff that was simply unnecessary and to clarify how the tag works to be in line with your view.
Thanks for trying to clean/wiki it Mozart, a little of what I’ve intending process wise has been lost in all the moving around.
I’ve made some more edits inline with what I intended to put to the NC, let me know if you have any questions. I do prefer keeping the flow in the form of: definitions, scope, material creation process, final approval process.
Was there any reason the Design Officer was put back in? We don’t have one and haven’t had any interest in someone doing Design for months. I decided to leave the role out of the authorisation process until such a time as someone was interested in doing it.
Edit: Now that I have had coffee, I don’t recall removing the Design Officer, so it was probably me who left it in. Fail.
What do people think about removing reference to the role?
Side note: Using pads is way better for seeing who made what changes. I was hoping for criticism, not re-writes (All good though). >.>
Given this applies to more than election materials, it seemed prudent to put the general requirements first and the specific requirements second.
It now also lacks parallel lists, now being poorly drafted: see, eg, http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/101202parallel.htm
Round 3 of edits for me I suppose.
Did some rearranging that keeps your ‘flow’.
I’d leave Designs Officer in for future-proofing.
I’m satisfied with the current revision at this point, thanks Mozart.
Excellent. 
I think with this we’ll have covered all things needing authorisation. 