[committee] Fwd: Thoughts on group membership review

Thu May 2 08:19:05 AWST 2019

Hi James, 
I actually requested in the discord for thoughts re: group reviews to be laid done it text.That way people can consolidate their arguments and everyone can see what people are thinking before going into the meeting.
If you also have initial thoughts, please add them.
When I get to a computer I'll read through Felix's email. But for now here were my initial thoughts:
I think that our review of groups should be to make certain that the members of our groups have an active interest in the club. People who have gotten onto groups usually get there for a reason, they are trusted by some portion of UCC. As such, I think that we should conduct a review by emailing all memebers of all groups and asking them if they would like to retain their membership to each group. Give it  a 14 day time limit, and then revoke access for all members who have not replied that they would like to continue to be part of groups.

Sent from my Samsung GALAXY S5

-------- Original message --------
From: James Myburgh <jamesmyburgh at outlook.com> 
Date: 01/05/2019  8:51 p.m.  (GMT+08:00) 
To: committee at ucc.asn.au 
Subject: [committee] Fwd: Thoughts on group membership review 

Hi Felix 

I think that this is something that we need to have a meeting ( or a few ) and to hear some other peoples views in regards to what to expect of the groups, ultimately the expectations of the groups will be found in the views of the membership
 as a whole.
Also, there are a number of things in this email that don’t sit well with me, because it seem that they are quite targeted.  Anyhow I am sure these can be fixed by workshopping the guidelines/expectations with committee and others.

Thanks

James Myburgh

Begin forwarded message:

From:
Felix von Perger <frekk at ucc.asn.au>

Subject:
Thoughts on group membership review

Date:
1 May 2019 at 8:30:19 pm AWST

To:
UCC Committee <committee-only at ucc.asn.au>

Hi committee,
Having brought up the group membership review at the OGM, and it now having been approved, I'm not 100% certain on how to go about the actual review process, and it's a fairly important discussion, so I'm glad people have demonstrated enthusiasm
 for discussing it outside of meetings.
Here are my thoughts so far;

As a precursor to the review itself, we should document, review and make any necessary changes to group application processes

See my earlier email regarding door applications - I think the two-question approach is probably a good way to go (at least for door, if not wheel etc. as well)The guidelines should clearly state the criteria for evaluating applications, in the interests of transparency

The most important thing when considering anyone for a position of power/responsibility is trust -
Generally we need to trust that people will follow all laws, rules and guidelines applicable to their positionFor door
trust that people will behave responsibly, be friendly and will follow/enforce the club rulesconfidence that people have in fact read the rules

For wheel
trust that people will not be evil (ie. following the ethical guidelines, acting in good faith towards the club and other members, etc)

Additionally, some other factors I think are relevant, and perhaps worth specifically asking; (these things we should discuss and come to an agreement as a committee)

For door: 

the general question; "Would you want this person to be the first person you meet at UCC?"interest in running events (movie screenings, Vive nights, etc)

availability (ie. if they will extend the opening hours of the room)

willingness/ability to attend cleanups
For wheel:
willingness to learn, and acknowledge that everyone can make mistakes

willingness to share skills/knowledge with others

having "clue" - (demonstrated) ability to use/show initiative

Note that I think technical skill is almost entirely irrelevant

Some general notes regarding group membership -

Positions of power/responsibility are a privilege, not a right

An application, which only says "I've been on door/wheel for ages" as the sole reasoning for remaining in that position, should be rejectedActive contributions are expected, at least to some degree - there isn't any point having someone on door/wheel if they are never around, or never do anything with it
for both door & wheel, this may be attending door/wheel meetingsfor door, cleanup attendance
Committee should endeavour to explain why applications are rejected to any unsuccessful applicants
Failed applications should not be held against someone - everyone is welcome to reapply and each application will be considered independently
There should be no difference between applications and reapplications, with regards to the criteria for approval

Regarding the proposed review process, and considering some points raised by Grace;

From the OGM and from the last wheel meeting - I agree with the idea of shortening the "chain of trust" between wheel members and committee

The primary purpose of the review, as I see it, is to set a precedent of properly reviewing all group memberships, which hopefully can continue to occur on a regular (perhaps annual) basis in the future.
I think the motion at the OGM was necessary because I wish to confirm that I am not alone in having a lack of confidence in the current system, whereby people continue to have almighty powers indefinitely until they either die or do something evil
I brought it up at the OGM because I didn't think anything would get done otherwise - there's a lot of inertia, and wheel reapplications, which by virtue of having never being done "properly" in over 20 years, will result in a lot of pushback
I think that a clearly defined and thus transparent application process, combined with regular reviews of the process and all group memberships, will provide the confidence in the system that is currently lacking

Secondary to that, but also important, is ensuring that people on door/wheel are still interested in those positions, and removing those who are not.
As for a plan of action -

Revise and publish the updated group application guidelines, including a procedure whereby all group memberships are reviewed on an annual basis.

Facilitate a discussion with the general member base about the revised guidelines, and give due consideration to any feedback given.Enact the review of group memberships, using the previously agreed-upon application/reapplication processes.

I realise that I'm not exactly in the best situation, in the eyes of some, to be driving this process. Regardless, I think it still needs to be done, so I will continue to push for it, but I will make an effort to abstain from any "controversial"
 decisions.
Most sincere hopes that you please please please rEaD YoUr EmAiL before the next meeting! As Grace says it will save a lot of time! *looks at everyone who complains about long meetings*
Best regards and much love as always,
Felix

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/committee/attachments/20190502/72e33c42/attachment.htm 