I'll make a few comments first and then respond to Colin's post in light
of the comments I have made. [I'll quote the whole of Colins post,
because the context in peoples minds have probably been lost now]
I understand the JLP to be a body that can make recommendations only. The
only way for the recommendations to be enforced is through the executive.
This includes adding bits'n'pieces to the AUP. The executive has to put
it in, we just tell it what.
If any members of the executive have a problem with what the JLP is
recommending then it should be discussed on the progsoc list where it
should have already been discussed. Members of the executive should
not be making their comments when the recommendation is made. This means
that the JLP should send a draft recommendation to the list for all to
comment on.
However, the executive really should never reject a JLP recommendation
unless:
1) There has been no discussion on the issue and the executive believes it
should be discussed,
2) The recommendation is against the wishes of the society as borne by
the discussion, or/and
3) The recommendation is constitionally invalid.
For matters concerning judgement of actions violating the AUP then the
executive should have no reason to reject the recommendations of the JLP
unless they (the recommendations, not the executive :-) are
constitutionally invalid.
Now, on to the reason for this rant...
Once upon a time Colin Panisset said...
>
> Once upon a time, Christopher Fraser was heard to say:
>
> } I think Colin said this bit:
> } > (This is from memory... once we have consensus I say "POSTINGS AWAY!")
> }
> } Then it should go to The Executive (TM) to make sure we're happy and
> } aware of what's going on. I (obviously) have already seen it. I've
> } also Cc'd it to sbg who I believe has comments he wants to make.
>
> I assume that this is so he can comment on the wording of the posting.
> I see no other reason for announcements from JLP to pass through the
> executive, and even that's a debatable necessity since none of them have
> any relevant legal experience (i.e. as much as any of us).
>
> Whether or not the executive is happy with our decision is completely
> beside the point. We're not here to make you happy, we're here to come
> to an impartial decision.
The executive has to be happy with our decision/recommendation in that
it must be valid by my points above. If it meets the criteria and all of
the executive absolutely hate it, then tough. They had their chance
during the discussion to change everybodys' mind. Now they have to accept
the wishes of the members.
JLP announcements should not have to pass through the executive, but
any decisions reached that are announced have to be OK'ed by the
executive.
So if we get a majority vote that says Ad positings to the list are ok,
then a AUP modification should be written and submitted to the executive
to execute it (ie. put it in the AUP). Consensus is not enough to say
"POSTINGS AWAY!" (except in this case where the postings are already
acceptable by the AUP).
I'll shut up now. Any comments?
Cheers
-- Cameron Hutchison (camh@nospam.orthanc.apana.org.au) | Beware of the clams GCS d--@nospam. -p+ c++(++++) l++ u+ e+ m+(-) s n- h++ f? !g w+ t r+