[committee] Fwd: Thoughts on group membership review
Felix von Perger
frekk at ucc.asn.au
Tue May 14 00:33:18 AWST 2019
Hi again,
As a followup to the meeting today in the Tav, I'd like to summarise the
discussions and propose an agenda for the next meeting (next Monday at a
similar time/place?)
See the Google doc for notes made (by various people) during the meeting:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lKD1GXQEiM44dZ7e6biJjE-yQi-TFIE_ZwGLD2KKXPA/edit?usp=sharing
From the discussions, a number points seemed to be fairly well agreed
upon. In no particular order:
* Trust is required of all group members (committee, door, wheel,
etc.), to varying degrees
o "shortening chain of trust" was controversial, more discussion
needed
o Trust is hard to quantify, need to develop a better process to
analyse that (perhaps part of the application form?)
* Signed ethical guidelines should be required for all group members,
to be renewed on a regular basis (ie. annually)
o this would essentially comprise the Wheel Ethical Guidelines,
likely in a slightly modified/reduced form for door/committee
* Regular (annual) renewals of some kind should be implemented (ie.
signing ethical guidelines, expression of interest to remain a
member of a group, etc.)
* Bureaucratic form-filling isn't a good use of people's time
* Transparency is important
* Group memberships should expire after some amount of time (perhaps
1-3 years?)
* Addition/removal to/from groups requires a reason
* Purpose of door group is already fairly well-established (no
particularly spicy discussion there)
* Purpose and nature of wheel group is very much up for discussion
[that is, nobody could agree what it should be holistically, but
here were some general points on which I think there was some consensus]
o It shouldn't be too big, or too small
o Technical/security/industry-business-model arguments are worth
considering with regards to how 'the system' should work
o everything should be authoritatively stored/managed by Git,
configs made public wherever possible
+ people have been trying to do this for ages, but very slow
progress
o suggestion of a small group of "super-wheel" was fairly popular
+ small/fixed number of people who have access to all systems,
regularly reviewed by committee and highly active in the
club (but not necessarily committee members)
+ these people could then administer finer-grained access to
"regular wheel" members
+ in the Git{lab|hub} ecosystem, consider the difference
between Maintainer role (with merge rights) vs Developer
(can make pull requests)
+ ideally everything would be automated (ie. you run a script
which logs access, adds your SSH key to a machine, and
removes it after you are done)
o many take pride in the title of "wheel" and changes to the
existing power structure will make people unhappy
o sprocket/winadmin are needed as groups
+ shouldn't be subject to the same requirements as wheel
Proposed agenda for next meeting:
* Points for general discussion:
o Do the ethical guidelines properly cover the ideals and values
of the club?
o How do you quantify trust? Do you need to?
o What is the ideal power structure for UCC and its various groups?
o What criteria exist for joining various groups?
+ How much trust is needed to add someone to a group?
+ Any skills? Knowledge? Experience? Time commitment /
availability?
+ How active as a member?
o Who should manage group memberships?
+ Committee by themselves?
+ Dual-consensus, ie. with existing group members and committee
* Desired outcomes:
o Review / design / draft ethical guidelines for the various groups
o Maybe, maybe, a rough draft of group [re-]application guidelines
o At least one whiteboard fully covered in diagrams
For those concerned about committee suddenly going power-crazy and
maliciously taking over the club, keep check this mailing list and come
along to the next meeting to discuss stuff with us. Alternatively, send
your input via email and please let us know what you think. There will
be plenty of opportunities for feedback during the various stages of
this process.
Since doing things properly takes time, and this is really just the
beginning, don't stress. I hope we can all work together through these
discussions, both in-person and by email, to make UCC better and
implement a properly thought-out procedure and set of guidelines to be
used for the upcoming group review.
On 12/5/19 12:47 am, Felix von Perger wrote:
>
> Having thought about this a bit more, I think a good place to start
> (as with anything controversial) is to determine what principles are
> involved, so that any further decisions can be clearly rationalised
> based on those principles. Fundamentally this comes down to the club's
> constitutional objectives:
>
>> 1. To be an organised association of students attending The
>> University of Western Australia, and
>> supporters, for the advancement of computer science and
>> technologies, both at the University and
>> in the broader community.
>>
>> 2. To co-operate with all bodies of similar aims.
>>
>> 3. The property and income of the Club shall be applied solely
>> towards the promotion of the objects
>> of the Club and no part of that property or income may be paid or
>> otherwise distributed, directly
>> or indirectly, to any person or body, except in good faith in the
>> promotion of those objects.
> and section 11. Duties of the Committee:
>
>> The Committee shall be responsible to the Club in General Meeting for
>> giving effect to the objects of
>> the Club.
>
> Since these are not very specific (it is the constitution after all),
> I've elaborated these into a more verbose set of (hopefully)
> self-consistent guiding principles, along with reasoning. Some of
> these probably factor into other discussions we're having/planning,
> including the diversity/inclusivity working group, however I believe
> these warrant some consideration in light of the group review. (1) to
> (4) below are quite general regarding the club as a whole, (5) and
> beyond are more specific to the group review.
>
> *1. UCC exists primarily as a student club, and thus the main target
> audience to which its resources should be applied are students at UWA.*
>
> * Objective 1 clearly states that we are an organisation of
> students, and supporters.
> o It doesn't specify that either, if any, should be prioritised,
> but there are numerous reasons (see below) why we are
> unavoidably student-focused
> * We are affiliated with the Societies Council of the UWA Student
> Guild, whose funding comes from students' amenities fees and is
> intended to be used to benefit students
> o In the event that the club decided to disaffiliate (or were
> requested to do so by the Guild at their whim) we would lose
> access to all the free stuff that we can easily take for
> granted (ie. power, internet, clubroom, money)
> o Disaffiliation would definitely cause UCC to stop existing and
> functioning in any capacity similar to its current form, and
> likely result in it formally winding up within a short amount
> of time
> * The Executive Committee must be current students at UWA (specified
> both in our constitution and required by SOC rules of affiliation)
>
> *2. UCC aims to provide educational and social opportunities to
> students and the wider community in relation to computer science and
> technology.*
>
> * We have a clubroom, which is used as a social space, and many of
> the events and activities that we facilitate and endorse (such as
> gaming, movies/Vive, camp, etc.) are primarily social-oriented
> * We are a registered Educational Charity
> * Being affiliated to the Guild, and operating on UWA campus, means
> we are obligated to at least pretend to do stuff related to education
> * "advancement" (Objective 1) can be taken to mean all sorts of
> things, but when considering the above, education should be one of
> the first that comes to mind
>
> *3. UCC aims to provide a friendly, inclusive and welcoming
> environment for all its members.*
>
> * It's not said anywhere in our constitution, but it's generally
> expected that people be friendly and respectful in any sort of
> social environment.
> o Look at the University and Guild regulations regarding
> tolerance and inclusivity
> o Discrimination based on many things including gender, race and
> religion is outright illegal in Australia
> * As per a (relatively recent) resolution of the committee, we
> acknowledge that we need to make more of an effort to make
> everyone feel welcome
> o Whilst "computer nerd culture" prides itself on not caring
> about gender/race/etc., it's also notoriously homogeneous
> (especially regarding gender distribution)
> * This point definitely overlaps with the working group discussions,
> but it's worth noting (however briefly) as it is a core principle
>
> *4. UCC aims to operate as transparently as possible, on all levels.*
>
> * This is implied partially at least in the constitution - members
> have a right to inspect records, rules, minutes, etc.
> * Use of modern technology gives all sorts of possibilities when it
> comes to transparency and communication, also consider Objective 1
> * Committee discussions (where appropriate), documents, regulations,
> minutes, etc. should be as open to the member base as technically
> possible
> * Members should have an opportunity to contribute to discussions
> * Personally, when it comes to student clubs, I think UCC is one of
> the best I've seen when it comes to transparency (and even then
> it's noticeably lacking in many ways)
>
> *5. Groups exist as a means for committee to delegate certain
> duties/responsibilities to ordinary members.*
>
> * Committee cannot practically do everything themselves, so it makes
> sense to get other people who are willing to help out onboard to
> get stuff done.
>
> Some specific duties of the committee:
> * Overseeing / governing the day-to-day operation of the club
> o Door group exists primarily for this purpose, regarding
> operation of the clubroom
> o Wheel also exists for this purpose, but regarding the
> electronic services instead
> * Giving effect to the objects of the club (as interpreted by the
> committee, in this case presuming that committee agrees on the
> principles listed here)
> o Door exists to facilitate those objectives in relation to
> allowing members to use the clubroom...
> o Wheel group exists by virtue of the club's objectives, but is
> it actually a means to achieve those objectives?
> * Governance, including stuff like this (writing/enforcing
> regulations/guidelines, general bureaucracy, managing group
> memberships, etc.)
> o These functions are reserved for committee, responsible to the
> club in general meeting
> o Groups do not exist to perform any governance-related functions
> o Of course that doesn't stop people who are members of groups
> from also being involved in the committee
>
> *6. Any member should have equal opportunity to apply, and be fairly
> considered, for any group membership, should they wish to do so.
> *
>
> * See (3) above, and some points below regarding wheel
> nominations/applications.
> * Any member should have the right to apply to become a member of
> any group, in accordance with some documented process, and their
> application will be fairly considered by the committee.
> * The procedure for evaluating applications should be well
> documented (in the interests of transparency and fairness)
> * Any application to a group by a particular person should be
> evaluated independently of any prior applications
> o If someone unsuccessfully applied once, that shouldn't be held
> against them
>
> *7. Group membership is a privilege, not a right.*
>
> * Nobody is entitled to membership of any group.
> o Note that committee is elected according to a formal
> "democratic" process, positions on the committee are not
> guaranteed and certainly not an entitlement
> * Tenure alone should not be considered when it comes to applications
> o For example, if someone has been a member of a group for
> several years, that shouldn't be the only reason for that
> person to remain a member of that group (other reasoning would
> be required, in accordance with these principles and/or the
> resulting group application guidelines)
> * Group membership doesn't have any honorary significance
> o We have honorary life memberships for that
> o People do not have a right to take offense to being removed
> from groups as per the regulations/guidelines, and if
> something happens that is unfair or doesn't follow those
> guidelines, it should be taken to the committee or brought to
> a general meeting.
>
> *8. The key factor to consider when considering group memberships is
> trust.*
>
> * In the case of positions of power, you want to trust that people
> will follow rules and not be evil
> o When rules change, there should always be some process to
> reaffirm that everyone agrees to follow those rules
> * Wheel membership requires a great deal of trust, proportional to
> the great amount of evil that can be done by abusing one's powers.
> o It's hard to clean up after an IT security breach, and thanks
> to the wonders of technology, being more evil is a lot easier
> when you do it with computers
> o tl;dr: you really need to trust your sysadmins
> * Door requires somewhat less trust, but trust is still essential.
> o Evil can still be done in-person, but to a lesser degree, and
> it's generally easier to spot (and remove people accordingly)
> * Evaluating trust can be hard, but perhaps one way to quantify and
> document the exact process it to follow a risk assessment
> procedure (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis)
>
> *9. Technical skill is not required to apply for a group.*
>
> * People can learn necessary skills to fill a position adequately,
> the key factor is their willingness to learn rather than any
> pre-existing skills
> o An official door training program could teach people what they
> need to know
> o New wheel members have typically had mentors -
> + Revising and making this process more official would be a
> good start, since it seems to have fallen by the wayside
> in many recent cases
> * A higher barrier to entry can easily prevent less-skilled people
> from engaging with the club's groups (and when it comes to keeping
> the club running, more is better)
>
>
> *More thoughts on various things, referenced above*. Regarding the
> wheel tradition of entry by nomination/invitation:
>
> As a note on current/previous operational standards - people have been
> nominated and invited to join wheel, without actually "applying" as
> such. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it has resulted in the
> expectation/assumption that someone themselves should not have to
> justify being a member of wheel, because their membership is instead
> justified/entitled by some kind of group consensus. Procedurally that
> makes more sense for life memberships, since it carries an honorary
> status, that is conferred upon someone by their peers as recognition
> for exceptional contribution and achievement. Wheel as a group should
> not be like that.
>
> Door memberships, on the other hand, seem to have generally been
> managed through some sort of application process. It's worth noting
> that even in the last few years where door reapplications have not
> been called so frequently, a similar expectation (often expressed as
> the sentiment "why should I have to reapply? I might as well just
> leave") has developed.
>
> Regarding nominations, generally something along the lines of "hey,
> you sound like you're interested, have you considered applying for X?"
> may still precede most people's applications, but that probably should
> be only an informal first-step towards encouraging someone to actually
> become a member of a group. Actually joining the group should always
> require a proper application which is approved by the committee.
> (which would follow the to-be-revised group application guidelines,
> such as by sending an email to committee/wheel answering a few questions).
>
> The tradition of nomination/invitation by existing members is also
> quite cult-like, and not democratic in relation to the club as a
> whole. This point has already been made before but it's still worth
> noting.
>
> On a completely unrelated note, why is the doorgroup mailing list
> archived, but not the wheel one?
>
> ----
>
> More thoughts and possibly even some actual suggested guidelines
> coming soon-ish. Probably.
>
> Sincerely, [FVP]
>
>
> On 2/5/19 8:19 am, Grace Rosario wrote:
>
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 -
>>> o Generally we need to trust that people will follow all laws,
>>> rules and guidelines applicable to their position
>>> o For door
>>> + trust that people will behave responsibly, be friendly
>>> and will follow/enforce the club rules
>>> + confidence that people have in fact read the rules
>>> o 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)
>>> o 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
>>> o 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 -
>>> o Positions of power/responsibility are a privilege, not a right
>>> o An application, which only says "I've been on door/wheel for
>>> ages" as the sole reasoning for remaining in that position,
>>> should be rejected
>>> o Active 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
>>> meetings
>>> + for door, cleanup attendance
>>> o 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
>>> o 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.
>>> o 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
>>> o 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 -
>>>
>>> 1. Revise and publish the updated group application guidelines,
>>> including a procedure whereby all group memberships are reviewed
>>> on an annual basis.
>>> 2. Facilitate a discussion with the general member base about the
>>> revised guidelines, and give due consideration to any feedback
>>> given.
>>> 3. 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/20190514/fb63265d/attachment.htm>
More information about the committee
mailing list