Re: Directions for the Programmers' Society - Part I

Ryan Shelswell (
Fri, 12 May 1995 10:58:02 +1000 (EST)

On Thu, 11 May 1995, Dennis Clark wrote:

> 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.

I know. But there are people who feel differently...

> 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
> reconsider.

Well, this at least sounds like a reasonable argument. I'll see. I'm
sure people would like to see some other people supporting it besides
me. If there aren't any, then I guess I'll wait until (if) more people
come around.

> 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.

That argument has no basis... it could be 're-formed' in about 1 day.
You've had, presumably, some time for these breaches, and what have you

> > 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?

Can you suggest any fair alternative?

> > 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
> point.

But we decided we *WOULD* have one, several times, in meetings that
were much more representative than the last one (apparently). It wasn't
even an issue "whether or not the JLP would go on" - we agreed at the
AGM it would.

> 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.

Fair enough.

> > 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?

I'll be in it.