---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 16:57:03 +1100 (EST)
From: Ryan Shelswell <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: The role of the JLP and the executive
On Tue, 13 Dec 1994, Jedd Rashbrooke wrote:
> Sbg writes:
> > On Fri, 9 Dec 1994, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> > [...]
> > > 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.
> > [...]
> > This logic is flawed. The Executive are not involved in the discussion by
> > default. I can only assume you thought they were because Chris Fraser has
> > been on the JLP mailing list.
> From reading Cam's original posting, I got the impression that he
> was referring to discussion on the progsoc, not the jlp, list. Now,
> if members of the exec don't want to be on the progsoc list . . . :)
I think it is not for the JLP or the Executive to blithely decide an
issue. I believe the JLP's function is to collect the necessary data and
do basic investigation work, and then clarify the problem such that it
becomes an abstract (rather than specific) one. Once this is done the
JLP members can discuss it and reach a consensus.
[Note: this sentence was a bit cryptic. What I meant by "abstract" was
that details such as who-dun-it are removed.]
Once the JLP themselves are in agreement, they can post a draft
recommendation to the list. Then EVERYONE in ProgSoc will have the
opportunity to thrash the matter out fairly. Once the issue has been
aired well and truely, the JLP could then take it back under advisement
and produce their final recommendation (which would be informed by
everyone-in-ProgSoc's (including the Executive) opinions).
At this point, the Executive might still not agree, for 2 reasons:
(1) The majority of the Executive might feel that most of the members
disagree. At this point then, we could have a formal vote on the matter.
2) Someone on the Executive might themselves disagree. I feel that for
an Executive member to fail to carry out their duties because of their
own personal opinion (even when the wishes of the members are otherwise)
is basically a breach of their duty as an Executicve member. In that
case punitive actions would have to be considered, or maybe the person
would need to be "re-educated" as Chris described once :-)
Note that (2) would probably never happen.
[As I said in the last post, I'm repeating a lot of what Cameron said]
> > The executive, BTW, are the ones who bear the responsibility of
> > representing the society. If they [executive] don't like them [your
> > recommendations] I can't see why they shouldn't send them back.
> Anyone in progsoc can represent the society. Exec members are
> responsible for decisions made by the society. My understanding
> is that after discussion and confirmation by the JLP (with or without
> open discussion on the progsoc list), the Exec then condone the
> actions suggested by the jlp.
As I understand it, the Executive is empowered to carry out the wishes of
the members of the Society. Under this view, the JLP could be considered
a tool by which the wishes of the society can be discovered and
clarified. Why do we need that? A quick reason (off the cuff) is
because the ProgSoc list is great for generation of ideas, but poor for
selection of good ones. The JLP could be considered a selection
mechanism by which the best ideas are worked out... then the Executive
work out how to do it.