Putting these here for discussion: http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Authorisation_processes
I’ve just drafted them and am hoping that people might have some thoughts on them. These are to regulate official outgoing communications that might be liabilities for us (eg press releases and submissions at the moment) if they’re not up to scratch and authorised appropriately.
That’s really good. I’d have hoped it had gone without saying, but I guess it’s good to say anyway.
My only suggestion, in the longer term, is that 1.6 and 2.8, e.g.
(8) One person occupying multiple positions cannot alone satisfy the requirements of subsections (6) and (7).
could ideally be handled with a single constitutional amendment to make an equivalent point clear, generally. I’ll raise that in the constitutional review.
Thanks! I decided to just go brutally legislative to make it absolutely clear.
A lot of it should go without saying, but we’ve had people saying they don’t know how to get approval/authorisation for anything, so I’m trying to bridge that gap. It’ll go straight on the front page of the wiki hopefully.
In fact, it’s more to make it as clear as possible rather than anything else.
You’re probably right about that point in regards to the party constitution. However, it’s good to still make it clear in the same document. 
Minor: Fixed typo relating to section number for proof reading press releases.
Do we want to ensure that the two authorizing people have also proof read the release? Or is it better to allow them to be distinct. Seems odd to have someone be able to authorize without proof-reading. I mean, if someone else has proof read it and tells you to authorize, surely said person should just authorize? Anyway, minor issue.
And lastly, what’s the process for “publishing on Party website”? Is that something the Councillors can take care of, or should regular joes like me know about this?
Good point. I will combine the two sections for simplicity and clarity. There’s nothing preventing more than two people from proofreading and authorising anyway.
The website runs on Wordpress, so the process is quite simple. The Press Officer, some Councillors and the IT Team can publish posts to the Party website.
This is really good and something of which I have been advocating for sometime now, as it was not always clear who is to compose Press Releases and how they are to be formatted and who authorizes them for publishing.
The information provided is really good and addresses almost all concerns for current and incoming PPAU members and eliminates any kind of confusion.
This information was always available for people who asked, but now it’s hopefully in one (or two) places. I’ll be reworking the submissions standard to be more like the Press Release Guide. It was always assumed anyone could write a press release if they wanted.
It would have been completed sooner, but people were on holidays (myself included) and there were some administrative emergencies that had to be dealt with. Still, didn’t take long to get done. 
Should be approved by the NC tomorrow night, or the meeting after I hope.
“Almost all” — what is omitted?
I don’t think it is clear enough whether once the person who composes the Press Statement has completed the sections 3-a and 3-b (i) and (ii), is that the end of their responsibilities?
If it is the end of the process for the Press Statement composer, then the documentation should specify this and state clearly that from 4-a onwards, the rest of the process is the primary responsibility of the Press Officers/Councilors.
Aside from that one specific, I think it’s pretty clear and obvious. Just my thoughts.
I have amended them to include a brief note that says:
[Note: unless a writer has responsibilities in subsequent subsections, their responsibilities end once the requirements of subsection (3) have been met.]
And the same for submissions, but referring to subsection (5) instead.
That’s excellent. I am happy with that. 
This has now been made official by the National Council, and will be placed on the front page of the Wiki. The thread can remain open if anyone wants to discuss/propose further amendments or other things that need authorisation.