Re: comments re: AUP

Alister Air (baitoven@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au)
Mon, 5 Aug 1996 15:31:43 +1000 (EST)

On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Joshua Graham Pitcher wrote:

> "possession of material designed specifically to facilitate the breach of other
> points of this policy"

I like this change.

> 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.

I agree with this in part, but I feel that members should have the right
to take an appeal as far as possible... in this case, to the membership,
who elects the executive. An exec meeting could decide something either
unfairly or without knowing the full extent of the story with a 2-2
decision, with a chair exercising both a substantive and a casting vote
(meeting-talk here). You could (yes, theoretically) then have unfair
decisions on members made by two people out of a membership of 400+ (or so
I've been told). Realistically, I do not imagine this happening in the
near future. But it could... quite easily.

Alister

+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Alister Air | "People that are really very wierd |
| Information Studies student | can get into sensitive positions |
| University of Technology | and have a tremendous impact on |
| Sydney --==> Australia | history." <==-- Danforth J Quayle |
+----------+------------------+----------------------+-------------+
| http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~baitoven |
+-----------------------------------------+