Since then there's been a discussion on the psexec and jlp lists
about what the exact relationship between the JLP and executive
should be. It's been quite hard to follow because of the number of
threads, list cross-posting, etc. A draft JLP FAQ is being worked
on, and I was kind of hoping we could have it ready before the
discussion moved to the ProgSoc list, but not all the issues have
been sorted out yet. Perhaps it's time to move discussion onto the
main list ...
Anyway, we need to get this down to something we all agree on or
at least something we can all live with. Your comments and input
(as always) are welcome ... although if you find this sort of thing
frightfully dull you're probably better off skiping the rest of
this posting.
To begin with, why do we want a JLP in the first place? Why not
just post everything to the main ProgSoc list? I think the major
reasons are:
* Too difficult to reach consensus quickly (ideally we need
decisions within a week or so.
* Hard to guarantee confidentiality and privacy.
* Inappropriate for discussions involving security.
A group of 3-5 elected persons should be able to satisfy the above
and represent the ProgSoc membership fairly. I think it's generally
agreed that the ProgSoc executive (President, Vice, Secretary,
Treasurer etc) shouldn't directly be responsible for dealing with
things like abuses of the AUP -- their role is primarily administrative,
making sure the society is working coherently, dealing with the
Union and the University etc. They are, however, ultimately
responsible for the operation of the society (if nothing else we're
the ones obligated to clean things up when something goes wrong).
The JLP needs to be independent with respect to the executive, in the
sense that the the position of the executive needs to be represented
as much as any other members, but no more (and various things have
been suggested to achieve this, ranging from no members of the exec on
the JLP, to some but less than a majority, to a single non-voting
representative of the executive on the JLP mailing list).
So, how should the decisions of the JLP relate to the executive? As the
burden of responsibility for implementing the decisions falls
upon the executive, one would hope they're happy with them (the current
executive certainly hopes to take a non-confrontationalist stance except
in the most extreme cases). Because of this it's highly desirable
for the JLP decisions to have the endorsement of the executive before
they're publicised.
Th main question is how much does this impede with the impartiality of
the JLP. The executive certainly should not be allowed to veto decisions
(this would rather defeat the original purpose), but will "pleasing"
executive compromise other goals?
directly to the membership via the announce list. From executive's
point of view the best solution would be to have the JLP consult
the executive before sending their decision on the announcement
list. If the executive has some disagreement with the decision
and can't convince the JLP of their position it gets taken to the
membership for a vote.
So the big $10,000 questions is does the latter mean the executive will
have too much influence over the JLP?
Christopher.