<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi again,</p>
<p>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?)<br>
</p>
<p>See the Google doc for notes made (by various people) during the
meeting:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lKD1GXQEiM44dZ7e6biJjE-yQi-TFIE_ZwGLD2KKXPA/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lKD1GXQEiM44dZ7e6biJjE-yQi-TFIE_ZwGLD2KKXPA/edit?usp=sharing</a></p>
<p>From the discussions, a number points seemed to be fairly well
agreed upon. In no particular order:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Trust is required of all group members (committee, door,
wheel, etc.), to varying degrees</li>
<ul>
<li>"shortening chain of trust" was controversial, more
discussion needed<br>
</li>
<li>Trust is hard to quantify, need to develop a better process
to analyse that (perhaps part of the application form?)<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>Signed ethical guidelines should be required for all group
members, to be renewed on a regular basis (ie. annually)</li>
<ul>
<li>this would essentially comprise the Wheel Ethical
Guidelines, likely in a slightly modified/reduced form for
door/committee</li>
</ul>
<li>Regular (annual) renewals of some kind should be implemented
(ie. signing ethical guidelines, expression of interest to
remain a member of a group, etc.)</li>
<li>Bureaucratic form-filling isn't a good use of people's time<br>
</li>
<li>Transparency is important</li>
<li>Group memberships should expire after some amount of time
(perhaps 1-3 years?)</li>
<li>Addition/removal to/from groups requires a reason<br>
</li>
<li>Purpose of door group is already fairly well-established (no
particularly spicy discussion there)</li>
<li>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]<br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>It shouldn't be too big, or too small</li>
<li>Technical/security/industry-business-model arguments are
worth considering with regards to how 'the system' should work</li>
<li>everything should be authoritatively stored/managed by Git,
configs made public wherever possible</li>
<ul>
<li>people have been trying to do this for ages, but very slow
progress<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>suggestion of a small group of "super-wheel" was fairly
popular</li>
<ul>
<li>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)<br>
</li>
<li>these people could then administer finer-grained access to
"regular wheel" members</li>
<li>in the Git{lab|hub} ecosystem, consider the difference
between Maintainer role (with merge rights) vs Developer
(can make pull requests)</li>
<li>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)</li>
</ul>
<li>many take pride in the title of "wheel" and changes to the
existing power structure will make people unhappy</li>
<li>sprocket/winadmin are needed as groups</li>
<ul>
<li>shouldn't be subject to the same requirements as wheel</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<p>Proposed agenda for next meeting:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Points for general discussion:</li>
<ul>
<li>Do the ethical guidelines properly cover the ideals and
values of the club?</li>
<li>How do you quantify trust? Do you need to?</li>
<li>What is the ideal power structure for UCC and its various
groups?</li>
<li>What criteria exist for joining various groups?</li>
<ul>
<li>How much trust is needed to add someone to a group?</li>
<li>Any skills? Knowledge? Experience? Time commitment /
availability?</li>
<li>How active as a member?<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>Who should manage group memberships?</li>
<ul>
<li>Committee by themselves?</li>
<li>Dual-consensus, ie. with existing group members and
committee</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<li>Desired outcomes:</li>
<ul>
<li>Review / design / draft ethical guidelines for the various
groups</li>
<li>Maybe, maybe, a rough draft of group [re-]application
guidelines<br>
</li>
<li>At least one whiteboard fully covered in diagrams</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/5/19 12:47 am, Felix von Perger
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e3f649e6-7fc4-7933-1409-462acb22b0db@ucc.asn.au">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>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:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite"><tt>1. To be an organised association of
students attending The University of Western Australia, and</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> supporters, for the advancement of computer science
and technologies, both at the University and</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> in the broader community.</tt><tt><br>
<br>
</tt><tt>2. To co-operate with all bodies of similar aims.</tt><tt><br>
<br>
</tt><tt>3. The property and income of the Club shall be applied
solely towards the promotion of the objects</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> of the Club and no part of that property or income
may be paid or otherwise distributed, directly</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> or indirectly, to any person or body, except in good
faith in the promotion of those objects.</tt></blockquote>
and section 11. Duties of the Committee:
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite"><tt>The Committee shall be responsible to
the Club in General Meeting for giving effect to the objects
of</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>the Club.</tt></blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><b>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.</b></p>
<ul>
<li>Objective 1 clearly states that we are an organisation of
students, and supporters.</li>
<ul>
<li>It doesn't specify that either, if any, should be
prioritised, but there are numerous reasons (see below) why
we are unavoidably student-focused<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>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</li>
<ul>
<li>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)</li>
<li>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<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>The Executive Committee must be current students at UWA
(specified both in our constitution and required by SOC rules
of affiliation)<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p><b>2. UCC aims to provide educational and social opportunities
to students and the wider community in relation to computer
science and technology.</b><br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>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</li>
<li>We are a registered Educational Charity</li>
<li>Being affiliated to the Guild, and operating on UWA campus,
means we are obligated to at least pretend to do stuff related
to education</li>
<li>"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</li>
</ul>
<p><b>3. UCC aims to provide a friendly, inclusive and welcoming
environment for all its members.</b></p>
<ul>
<li>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.</li>
<ul>
<li>Look at the University and Guild regulations regarding
tolerance and inclusivity<br>
</li>
<li>Discrimination based on many things including gender, race
and religion is outright illegal in Australia</li>
</ul>
<li>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</li>
<ul>
<li>Whilst "computer nerd culture" prides itself on not caring
about gender/race/etc., it's also notoriously homogeneous
(especially regarding gender distribution)</li>
</ul>
<li>This point definitely overlaps with the working group
discussions, but it's worth noting (however briefly) as it is
a core principle</li>
</ul>
<p><b>4. UCC aims to operate as transparently as possible, on all
levels.</b></p>
<ul>
<li>This is implied partially at least in the constitution -
members have a right to inspect records, rules, minutes, etc.</li>
<li>Use of modern technology gives all sorts of possibilities
when it comes to transparency and communication, also consider
Objective 1</li>
<li>Committee discussions (where appropriate), documents,
regulations, minutes, etc. should be as open to the member
base as technically possible</li>
<li>Members should have an opportunity to contribute to
discussions<br>
</li>
<li>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)</li>
</ul>
<p><b>5. Groups exist as a means for committee to delegate certain
duties/responsibilities to ordinary members.</b></p>
<ul>
<li>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.<br>
<br>
Some specific duties of the committee:<br>
</li>
<li>Overseeing / governing the day-to-day operation of the club</li>
<ul>
<li>Door group exists primarily for this purpose, regarding
operation of the clubroom<br>
</li>
<li>Wheel also exists for this purpose, but regarding the
electronic services instead</li>
</ul>
<li>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)<br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>Door exists to facilitate those objectives in relation to
allowing members to use the clubroom...<br>
</li>
<li>Wheel group exists by virtue of the club's objectives, but
is it actually a means to achieve those objectives?</li>
</ul>
<li>Governance, including stuff like this (writing/enforcing
regulations/guidelines, general bureaucracy, managing group
memberships, etc.)</li>
<ul>
<li>These functions are reserved for committee, responsible to
the club in general meeting</li>
<li>Groups do not exist to perform any governance-related
functions<br>
</li>
<li>Of course that doesn't stop people who are members of
groups from also being involved in the committee</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p><b>6. Any member should have equal opportunity to apply, and be
fairly considered, for any group membership, should they wish
to do so.<br>
</b></p>
<ul>
<li>See (3) above, and some points below regarding wheel
nominations/applications.</li>
<li>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.</li>
<li>The procedure for evaluating applications should be well
documented (in the interests of transparency and fairness)</li>
<li>Any application to a group by a particular person should be
evaluated independently of any prior applications<br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>If someone unsuccessfully applied once, that shouldn't be
held against them</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p><b>7. Group membership is a privilege, not a right.</b></p>
<ul>
<li>Nobody is entitled to membership of any group.</li>
<ul>
<li>Note that committee is elected according to a formal
"democratic" process, positions on the committee are not
guaranteed and certainly not an entitlement</li>
</ul>
<li>Tenure alone should not be considered when it comes to
applications<br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>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)</li>
</ul>
<li>Group membership doesn't have any honorary significance</li>
<ul>
<li>We have honorary life memberships for that</li>
<li>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.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p><b>8. The key factor to consider when considering group
memberships is trust.</b></p>
<ul>
<li>In the case of positions of power, you want to trust that
people will follow rules and not be evil</li>
<ul>
<li>When rules change, there should always be some process to
reaffirm that everyone agrees to follow those rules<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>Wheel membership requires a great deal of trust,
proportional to the great amount of evil that can be done by
abusing one's powers.</li>
<ul>
<li>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</li>
<li>tl;dr: you really need to trust your sysadmins<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>Door requires somewhat less trust, but trust is still
essential.<br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>Evil can still be done in-person, but to a lesser degree,
and it's generally easier to spot (and remove people
accordingly)</li>
</ul>
<li>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, <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis</a>)<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p><b>9. Technical skill is not required to apply for a group.</b></p>
<ul>
<li>People can learn necessary skills to fill a position
adequately, the key factor is their willingness to learn
rather than any pre-existing skills</li>
<ul>
<li>An official door training program could teach people what
they need to know</li>
<li>New wheel members have typically had mentors -</li>
<ul>
<li>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<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<li>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)</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><b>More thoughts on various things, referenced above</b>.
Regarding the wheel tradition of entry by nomination/invitation:<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p> 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.</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>On a completely unrelated note, why is the doorgroup mailing
list archived, but not the wheel one?</p>
<p>----<br>
</p>
<p>More thoughts and possibly even some actual suggested
guidelines coming soon-ish. Probably.</p>
<p>Sincerely, [FVP]</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>On 2/5/19 8:19 am, Grace Rosario wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b27k9o65mrpmhh8g8ymfgeyy.1556756240642@email.android.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">Hi James, </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I actually requested in the discord for
thoughts re: group reviews to be laid done it text.</div>
<div dir="auto">That way people can consolidate their
arguments and everyone can see what people are thinking
before going into the meeting.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If you also have initial thoughts, please
add them.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">When I get to a computer I'll read through
Felix's email. But for now here were my initial thoughts:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div style="font-size:88%;color:#364f67">Sent from my Samsung
GALAXY S5</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: James Myburgh <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:jamesmyburgh@outlook.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><jamesmyburgh@outlook.com></a>
<br>
Date: 01/05/2019 8:51 p.m. (GMT+08:00) <br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:committee@ucc.asn.au" moz-do-not-send="true">committee@ucc.asn.au</a>
<br>
Subject: [committee] Fwd: Thoughts on group membership review <br>
<br>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
line-break: after-white-space;" class=""> Hi Felix
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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.</div>
<div class="">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.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">James Myburgh</div>
<div class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Begin forwarded message:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""> <span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0,
1.0);" class=""><b class="">From: </b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">Felix von
Perger <<a href="mailto:frekk@ucc.asn.au"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">frekk@ucc.asn.au</a>><br
class="">
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""> <span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0,
1.0);" class=""><b class="">Subject: </b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class=""><b class="">Thoughts
on group membership review</b><br class="">
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""> <span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0,
1.0);" class=""><b class="">Date: </b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">1 May 2019 at
8:30:19 pm AWST<br class="">
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""> <span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0,
1.0);" class=""><b class="">To: </b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">UCC Committee
<<a href="mailto:committee-only@ucc.asn.au"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">committee-only@ucc.asn.au</a>><br
class="">
</span></div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<p class="">Hi committee,</p>
<p class="">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.</p>
<p class="">Here are my thoughts so far;<br class="">
</p>
<p class="">As a precursor to the review itself, we
should document, review and make any necessary
changes to group application processes</p>
<ul class="">
<li class="">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)</li>
<li class="">The guidelines should clearly state
the criteria for evaluating applications, in the
interests of transparency<br class="">
<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">The most important thing when
considering anyone for a position of
power/responsibility is trust -</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">Generally we need to trust that
people will follow all laws, rules and
guidelines applicable to their position</li>
<li class="">For door</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">trust that people will behave
responsibly, be friendly and will
follow/enforce the club rules</li>
<li class="">confidence that people have in
fact read the rules<br class="">
</li>
</ul>
<li class="">For wheel</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">trust that people will not be
evil (ie. following the ethical guidelines,
acting in good faith towards the club and
other members, etc)<br class="">
<br class="">
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<li class="">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)<br
class="">
</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">For door: <br class="">
</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">the general question; "Would you
want this person to be the first person you
meet at UCC?"</li>
<li class="">interest in running events (movie
screenings, Vive nights, etc)<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">availability (ie. if they will
extend the opening hours of the room)<br
class="">
</li>
<li class="">willingness/ability to attend
cleanups</li>
</ul>
<li class="">For wheel:</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">willingness to learn, and
acknowledge that everyone can make mistakes<br
class="">
</li>
<li class="">willingness to share
skills/knowledge with others<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">having "clue" - (demonstrated)
ability to use/show initiative<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">Note that I think technical skill
is almost entirely irrelevant</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<ul class="">
<li class="">Some general notes regarding group
membership -<br class="">
</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">Positions of power/responsibility
are a privilege, not a right<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">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</li>
<li class="">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</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">for both door & wheel, this
may be attending door/wheel meetings</li>
<li class="">for door, cleanup attendance</li>
</ul>
<li class="">Committee should endeavour to
explain why applications are rejected to any
unsuccessful applicants</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">Failed applications should not be
held against someone - everyone is welcome
to reapply and each application will be
considered independently</li>
</ul>
<li class="">There should be no difference
between applications and reapplications, with
regards to the criteria for approval<br
class="">
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
Regarding the proposed review process, and
considering some points raised by Grace;
<ul class="">
<li class="">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<br class="">
<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">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.</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">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</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">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</li>
</ul>
<li class="">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<br
class="">
<br class="">
</li>
</ul>
<li class="">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.</li>
</ul>
<p class="">As for a plan of action -</p>
<ol class="">
<li class="">Revise and publish the updated group
application guidelines, including a procedure
whereby all group memberships are reviewed on an
annual basis.<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">Facilitate a discussion with the
general member base about the revised
guidelines, and give due consideration to any
feedback given.</li>
<li class="">Enact the review of group
memberships, using the previously agreed-upon
application/reapplication processes.<br class="">
</li>
</ol>
<p class="">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.</p>
<p class="">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*</p>
<p class="">Best regards and much love as always,</p>
<p class="">Felix</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>