---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Andrew Wilson - Adminning the progsoc machine ...
-- milamber@nospam.ftoomsh.socs.uts.edu.au "Indecision is the key to flexibility."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 13:28:05 +1100
From: owner-jlp@nospam.ftoomsh.socs.uts.edu.au
To: owner-jlp@nospam.ftoomsh.socs.uts.edu.au
Subject: BOUNCE jlp@nospam.ftoomsh.socs.uts.edu.au: Admin request
>From milamber Wed Dec 14 13:28:03 1994
Received: from fox-in.socs.uts.edu.au (fox-in.socs.uts.EDU.AU [138.25.8.26]) by ftoomsh.socs.uts.EDU.AU (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA21817; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 13:28:02 +1100
Received: (from sbg@nospam.localhost) by fox-in.socs.uts.edu.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA09100; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:25:35 +1100
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:25:34 +1100 (EST)
From: Stephen Boyd Gowing <sbg@nospam.fox-in.socs.uts.edu.au>
X-Sender: sbg@nospam.fox-in
To: camh@nospam.orthanc.apana.org.au
cc: jlp@nospam.ftoomsh.socs.uts.EDU.AU, psexec@nospam.ftoomsh.socs.uts.EDU.AU
Subject: Re: The role of the JLP and the executive
In-Reply-To: <m0rHLzS-000HWIC@nospam.orthanc.apana.org.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941214115814.8382N-100000@nospam.fox-in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
[ This hasn't been sent to `progsoc' itself 'cause it might confuse them
even more. Chris is working on an introductory document to help them
understand what's going on. ]
On Tue, 13 Dec 1994, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> Once upon a time Stephen Boyd Gowing said...
> >
> > [...]
> > > 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.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't very clear in my last message. I will try to be here.
> Please do your bit and read carefully.
Sorry,.. based on your original posting, you are right and I am wrong. I
didn't realise we'd gone back to the `policy about job-ads on mailing
lists' discussion. I assumed this was another post about JLP operation.
I have to admit, I didn't understand why a policy was needed. It
certainly hadn't been called for (the original question was `Is there
one?' to which the correct answer would've been `No'. Had anyone
complained, perhaps having a policy would make sense. Anarchy is cool.)
Further, after collecting votes from the members the bits about what to
put on the subject line were abitrarily made up (no discussion involving
the executive -- or anyone else -- there!).
[ lots of things thrown away ]
> I hope I have clearly stated why the executive should not send them back.
Sure. But what I thought (incorrectly) I was talking about was the actual
role of the JLP.. the judicial stuff.. the working out if someone's done
something wrong w.r.t progsoc policy. In which the discussion is a black
box to everyone except the JLPers. I'm sure you understand why the JLP's
decisions, in that case, should be open to external scrutiny.
sbg