[committee] Restrictions on group applications for freshers

[Ash Tyndall]

I think the heart of my problem with the six-months rule is I see it as a
double-standard: It only applies to some people, and those who are exempt
are IMHO not by virtue of their position any more worthy of this exemption
than anyone else.
i.e. We trust the Fresher Rep earlier, but the Fresher Rep is basically just
an enthusiastic club member. Logically, we should trust any similarly
enthusiastic club member regardless of any position they may or may not
hold.
I would agree that the current system works, but that does not mean it
cannot be improved.

Do people understand what I'm getting at?

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Matt Didcoe <mattman at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>wrote:

> Oh good, more list drama!
>
> I feel that perhaps this thread didn't get off to the right start, so
> lets forget all about coke for now and address the actual point Ashley
> raised :)
>
> 1) To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time "complaints"
> have been made regarding this longstanding UCC practice.
> 2) Chris says the next bit quite well, so I refer you back to his email :)
> 3) I would add to Chris' email, that respect is something that, much
> like trust, is earned over time and this respect is very important,
> particularly for door members who are tasked with maintaining order
> and trying to get people to leave as required.
> 4) Jon - who are these people who were telling him it was a waste of
> time (feel free to email names off list)
>
> Applications after this period are assessed on trust already, with the
> addition of some basic questioning to ensure the applicant understands
> the exactly what the role entails. I don't feel anything needs to be
> changed in the way we assess people for roles within the club (its
> worked pretty darn well for the last god knows how many years) - if
> there's someone really exceptional and keen, they'll stick around and
> do little bits of pieces for the first six months, happily waiting for
> the opportunity to step up. Remember, being on one of our groups is
> not an entitlement you get when you sign up.
>
> [MRD]
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Jonathan Van buren <vanbujm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > @BOB: I just found it odd that there was so many balance adds by root, i
> it
> > seemed to me that the point of the logs was so see clearly who is adding
> > what to where and having a group of anonymous root adds counteracts this,
> it
> > was never a issue of trust.
> >
> > @SZM: You are correct that no applications have been denied lately, it
> was
> > just that the way people put it to Cain his application was a waste of
> time
> > because he was a first year, and i can verify(i was there)  that many
> people
> > he was asking when trying to submit his LOLCAT application seemed to
> dismiss
> > him. The reason i brought this up is i was worried that word would get
> > around that freshers should not even bother trying to get into groups
> > because of this, and i personally believe that this would be a
> significantly
> > negative thing to insinuate.
> >
>



-- 
Ash Tyndall [ASH]
2011 Fresher Rep
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/mailman/private/committee/attachments/20110520/eadc29fe/attachment.htm