[committee] Potential coke purge

[Jeremy Cole]

Zanchey,
I agree and disagree with the idea of a coke purge. On one hand i get that
users that dont appear to be using the privilege should have no need for it
and the less people on the list the less chance we have of an issue
arrising. However the other side of the argument is that coke (whilst having
control over money to do with the club) is less important to police members
as whilst someone getting in the door and stealing something
is permanent and harder to track (even considering the webcams). Coke credit
added is trackable by logs (which are editable ill admit but only by wheel
members i hope) and easily removed if we find out someone is 'cheating' the
system.

I think it is beneficial to the club to have people who may not always be in
the club in coke as if they are in the club room when a member of coke is
not present then the can still add credit to an account. All this being said
however im not going to say i'm against a coke purge, just something i think
well require a bit of discussion before a conclusion is come to

Jeremy

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:53 PM, David Adam <zanchey at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>wrote:

> Hot on the heels of the door purge, I thought it might be appropriate to
> think about removing some of our less-present coke members as well.
>
> I came up with a list of people in coke.controllers who have not added
> money to someone else's account since at least 20080101 by parsing the
> cokelogs - that is, they have only dispensed for themselves or added money
> to their own accounts.
>
> ack - Robert Slaughter
> colm - Colm Kiely
> dagobah - Bernard Blackham
> dayta - Leighton Haynes
> grahame - Grahame Bowland
> gretel - Zoe Wadsworth
> griffin - Stephen Griffiths
> maelstrm - Christopher Grubb
> mjdawson - Michael Dawson
> nickc - Nick Cockran
> nikita - Meryki Basden
> ninjeff - Jeff Saunders
> susie - Susan Johnston
> thebmw - Brad Wake
>
> Of course, if these people are useful to Coke group in other ways, such as
> by helping with coke runs then we should probably leave them there; I'll
> put this on the agenda for next week.
>
> David Adam
> zanchey@
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/committee/attachments/20090325/0db0019c/attachment.htm>