I have a comment regarding the wording in one paragraph of the AUP. One of
the points under "Unacceptable Uses of Progsoc Equipment is the paragraps:
"possession of material designed to facilitate the breach of other points of this policy "
This statement IMHO carries very broad interpretations, which could lead
to problems further down the track. As a dumb example, elm is a very good
vehicle to sent offensive messages to other members, which is a breach of
the AUP. Thus possesion of elm could itself be considered a breach of the AUP.
A more serious example: a president with a bad attitude gets into power and
starts locking of all accounts containing disk duplication software because
in his opinion anyone with software myst be using it to make pirate
software.
A suggested change would be:
"possession of material designed specifically to facilitate the breach of other
points of this policy"
Also the AUP specifically revokes the right to appeal against decisions. If
we are to give admins the power to take action independantly of the
executive then we must also make the admins responsible to the executive by
civing users the right to appeal to the executive against arbitrary
decisions made by the admins. Sure we must trust the admins to do their job,
but we must also make them accountable for their actions through
such a mechanism. I do not feel that any user should have the right to
appeal against decisions made by the executive as a group.
Just my 2c worth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Pitcher jpitcher@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au
P.O. Box 253 http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~jpitcher
Pymble 2053
AUSTRALIA
University, n.:
Like a software house, except the software's free, and it's
usable, and it works, and if it breaks they'll quickly tell you how to
fix it, and ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------