I don't want to stop things from happening. I just think any further
debating on the pros and cons of the JLP will not be productive at this
point in time. As I said, there are quite a few people who are fed up
with its seemingly-endless debating and so would rather bury it than
give it another chance. It was dumped at the meeting by due democratic
process. If you feel the decision was unrepresentive, show me proof
(ie. petition it). If you get enough people to agree with you, I'll
Let the current Executive have a go at doing it themselves, and if they
or other members have problems with the resulting system, they can speak
up and we can work out how to address them. It may turn out that the
best solution is the JLP, or it may not. Until then, I don't want to
hypothesise on what problems letting the Executive handle AUP breaches
*MAY* cause. In any case, we've already got AUP breaches on our plate
and you must be crazy to think I'm going to wait until the JLP reforms
before they are handled.
> If there are real concerns, they can be aired open-forum (like here).
We did that last year, and it just got so long and confusing that people
(including myself) started losing interest. What makes you think it
will be any different this time?
> Other than that, the attitude is to
> say 'we decided to do it, so let's get on with it'.
But we've decided *NOT* to have a JLP in the last meeting - that's my
Don't drag me into the same arguing that the Executive had last year
Ryan. I'm not going to discuss the JLP any further until you show me
proof of your support.
> I didn't say the constitution was the problem! It's only a piece of paper!
> BTW We could always have a working party meet to decide the changes, then
> call a GM to ratify them.
Good idea. Who wants to be in the working party?
-- Dennis Clark President, Programmers' Society email@example.com University of Technology, Sydney "Clear code is a product of clear thought."