This isn't a policy - it looks more like something account-holders
would be expected to sign, or a guideline. The intent is probably
OK, but the language is all wrong. The policy refers to Progsoc
(as in, Progsoc's policy), not the members, and so it should be
worded that way.
This is probably OK just as a guideline, so long as a real policy
is either not needed or will be written.
> I understand that I am wholly responsible for any data that I
> store on any Programmers' Society machine.
Particularly this: this wording doesn't seem strong enough. Despite
logic, I don't think its enough to make users claim all responsibility;
Progsoc must explicitly disclaim it.
> I agree to keep myself aware of and abide by future revisions to
> this policy. I understand that from time to time further directives
> may be made regarding the use of Programmers' Society
> system resources, including CPU time and disk space, and that
> such directives may vary over time and may be different for
> each Programmers' Society member.
What's the point of having any policy or guidelines if they can differ
arbitarily from member to member? You may as not have a policy.
This should be made more general and more precise: talk just about
system resources (rather than listing what types, unless you want
a comprehensive list, which could be dull), and be more precise
about what the differences in "directives" can be, and under what
curcumstances they may occur. At least say who is responsible for
deciding them.
J