Item 2: Role of the Society Computer Administrator.
One of the problems we seem to have with this is the inability to agree
to the name for this role. Some call it "Computer Officer", some call
it "Systems Administrator", some call it "Equipment Officer". One of
the first things we should decide on is a NAME for this role and STICK
Anyway here is my proposal for the new role of the "Equipment Officer".
* Responsible for installing or otherwise making operational and
available ProgSoc equipment as requested by the Executive.
* Responsible for administration of ProgSoc systems and equipment.
The Computer Officer may appoint systems programmers to assist
in administration activities, but the Computer Officer ultimately has
the responsibility of keeping things running.
* To keep membership informed on state of ProgSoc equipment.
Typically this would be done by keeping the Web pages
up-to-date, and announcing significant changes on the progsoc
* Make plans and recommendations to Executive on ProgSoc systems
and equipment issues.
Item 3: Role of the Publicity Officer.
Sammy (this year's Publicity Officer) has told me of his concerns that
this item sounds like the end of his role as part of the ProgSoc
Executive. Although last year's Publicity Officer was not really part
of the Executive Committee, I think most of us would agree that having a
first year in the Executive is advantageous (such was said on this
mailing list on the lead-up to the AGM). For the Executive Committee it
also is useful to have one more Committee member as it otherwise appears
difficult to get the minimum 4 members required together to hold
Executive meetings, with all of their conflicting schedules.
Anyhow, this is what Sammy himself proposes as his role as Publicity
> 1 ) Putting up posters, arranging advertising materials etc.
> 2 ) Making announcements of events etc. at lectures when needed
> 3 ) Attending external meetings etc. if other exec. members are
> not available/can't be bothered
> 4 ) Being available to explain what progsoc is all about to
> potential members.
Item 4: Proposed procedure for breaches of the Acceptable Usage Policy.
I feel that the greatest problem in the debate over role of the Justice
League of ProgSoc is the lack of clearly-defined procedure for it. I
believe that defining such a procedure to handle breaches of the
Acceptable Usage Policy will make clear why we need a JLP, and how to
make it effective.
This is my proposed procedure:
The problem may be rectified by a system administrator if possible.
Typically this will apply when a user consumes too much of the
system's resources, and an administrator kills processes or
deletes files as appropriate. The user will be notified by
E-mail if this happens.
The offending account may be locked by a system administrator.
To get the account unlocked, the owner must see one of the
ProgSoc system administrators and explain the circumstances
which led to the account being locked. If the explanation is
satisfactory, the account will be unlocked, otherwise the matter
is forwarded to the JLP.
For serious offences, the matter will be referred to the Justice
League of Progsoc (the JLP). The JLP will then investigate the
matter and make a recommendation to the Executive within two (2)
weeks of the mater being brought to them. The Executive will
then make a decision on the action to be taken (passed by at
least two-thirds of the Executive, as outlined in the
Constitution), which may include disqualification of membership.
The person has the right to appeal the decision, by calling for
a Special General Meeting as outlined in the Constitution.
After each side makes its case, the decision will be held to a
vote, with two-thirds of the members present needed to uphold
the decision. If the decision is not upheld, any member can
suggest an alternative action, which like the original decision
needs two-thirds of the vote to be upheld.
Sysadmins should post any account lockings to their mail alias.
This way users cannot go to a sysadmin who do not know the
circumstances of the account locking in order to get away with
A list of the names of System Administrators and how to contact
them needs to be easily available so that users can get their
accounts unlocked without undue fuss.
Some members suggest that the JLP should have the power to
decide rather than just recommend actions for breaches of
policy. The fact is that in situations where the AUP is unclear
about the matter (which is where the JLP is most useful), it is
really only the Executive who has the power to claim a member's
actions as "prejudicial to the interests of the Society" outside
of a General Meeting. If the membership does not agree to a
decision, they can reverse it at an appeal.
The JLP will most likely make recommendations on changes to be
made to the AUP along with what action should be taken. This
needs to be passed by the Executive, but is very unlikely to be
vetoed by them. In the case of JLP proposals for changes to the
AUP being disapproved by the Executive, the changes can be
brought forward for membership discussion, and if an agreement
between the JLP and Executive still cannot be made, a general
meeting can decide the matter.
I'll bring some copies of this to the meeting so we'll have a starting
point for discussion. Comments, as always, are welcome.
-- Dennis Clark President, Programmers' Society firstname.lastname@example.org University of Technology, Sydney "Clear code is a product of clear thought."