Re: The JLP discussions

Ryan Shelswell (ryan@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au)
Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:15:22 +1100 (EST)

At this point, it would only complicate matters to start a progsoc-wide
discussion of how the JLP will work. I want to answer Glenn's query
because I think it will aid understanding for everyone, but *please*
don't reply anymore... a JLP FAQ will be put out for comment soon, and I
suggest we have a GM near then and discuss any concerns that people
have... and make necessary changes etc.

On Thu, 15 Dec 1994, Glenn Rickersey wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Dec 1994, Ryan Shelswell wrote:
>
> [.. snip ..]
>
> > The actual agreed scope of the JLP was to deal with any member complaints
> > and issues (I remember because I brought it up :-)
>
> You brought it up but I dont think it was 'agreed'. Unless your
> sentence is alot less sweeping that I read it as.

It was definately agreed... I have not read the minutes but it was agreed
that the scope of JLP was to widen past AUP breaches, to be a forum for
discussion.

Now, I really can't see how this is 'sweeping'. I think your concern is
that you can envisage the JLP as taking issues away and deciding them in
a 'star chamber', and returning the unchangeable, final THING TO DO...
that's not it at all.

The JLP has *no more power* than any member of ProgSoc who is making an
announcement on the list... the only purpose of it as far as (b) is concerned
is to create an area of low noise and high signal where members who have
basically guaranteed their commitment/interest to ProgSoc can rationally
discuss issues and return *their recommendation*... which ProgSoc under no
circumstances has to follow. In fact, it's hoped that the JLP will increase
member participation by encouraging voting on issues and new policy (which has
already happened).

This guarantees that ideas can actually get a fair considered hearing,
which is difficult under the current high-volume list (some members of
ProgSoc have given up reading the list because it is so noisy).

The only time a JLP recomendation has intrinsic 'weight' is when it is
called on to arbitrate/interpret a policy breach. Even in this case, if
a large membership outcry occurs, or the Executive disagree, it goes to a
vote.

As far as point (b) is concerned, you could think of the JLP as a mailing
list of people who currently have the time and energy to consider the
ideas and complaints people have, and sort out the good from the bad...
if people don't want to send a complaint to the JLP, they don't have to.
If they do, they can. It is definately NOT another power structure (we
don't need any more of those).

If you're still worried Glenn, let's take it offline and I'll show you the FAQ
so far and so on.

Ryan