Some comments on this report are present here: Annual General Meeting, Hilary 2010.
Initial Report on Consultation for Constitutional Reform of the Computer Society
Foreword
This brief report contains both technical and substantive remarks about the Society's Constitution. The aim is to initiate a debate amongst CompSoc members and other interested parties about what the aims of a Computer Society should be, in an age where computers and the Internet are parts of most people's everyday lives. Constitutional reform is the base on which the structure of our future activities can be built.
We can seek inspiration for our role from similar societies elsewhere, but our needs and aims will probably remain somewhat different. In part, this is because there are relatively few students at Oxford studying Computer Science and related degrees. Our membership has in large part been drawn from such students, causing variations in the level of interest depending on the year-to-year composition of the potential membership. In order to ensure the future stability of the Society, one of the central aims of our continuing discussion shod be to broaden the appeal and membership base of the Society. Our interests are no longer purely niche interests, so we should not remain purely a niche organisation.
This report is just a starting point for what I hope will be a fruitful process of discussion on the aims of CompSoc. It is not an attempt to distance the Society from its past, but I hope that it will help to bring about evolutionary change in our outlook.
I am indebted to Jonathan Ville, the Society's President and Dominic Hargreaves, the Society's Senior Member for their contribution to discussions which lead to the initiation of this consultation process.
Adam Obeng
Secretary, Oxford University Computer Society
Presented at the Annual General Meeting of the Oxford University Computer Society, Wednesday of 8th week of Hilary Term 2010.
Compliance with Regulations
The Regulations for the Activities and Conduct of Student Members (Rule Committee's regulations for University Clubs) regulate the organisation of all student clubs and societies within the University. In general, these regulations are not overly onerous, and the Society appears to be reasonably compliant with them. There are, however, some specific concerns that should be addressed.
The Regulations for Non-sports Clubs specify that
1.9. (1) Each non-sports club which registers with the Proctors shall:
[...]
(m) admit to membership, if it so wishes, other persons not being members of the University, or one of the institutions listed in (l) above, on condition that students of Oxford Brookes University (other than members of the Westminster Institute) shall not constitute more than one-fifth of the total membership and in addition other non-university members shall not constitute more than one-fifth of the total membership;
According to our membership database, only 94 of our 304 members (31%) are verified as being current members of the University (These figures are described in notes attached to the database as “horribly inaccurate”.). The above regulation might be interpreted as applying only to the Resident Ordinary Membership (a term which is not defined in the Society's constitution), which might reduce the scope of the problem. Nevertheless, this issue needs to be investigated. In particular, the import for this regulation of those who joined CompSoc as members of the University, but are no longer members of the University should be established.
In addition to the rules that apply specifically to student societies, all clubs and societies need to comply with the Data Protection Act 2000. There are several areas where the Society could improve its adherence to the Clubs Committee's guidance on data protection issues. Note that this guidance applies both to the primary electronic records of the Society and the hard-copy records containing personal data (mostly application forms).
The Club Committee's guidance indicates that “personal data must be obtained for one or more lawful purposes and must not be further processed in any manner incompatible with the purpose(s); so it is not OK for you to use the membership register to generate mailing-lists for use by external parties (e.g. sponsors, other clubs) unless individual members specifically agree to this” (emphasis in original) Although compliance is currently adequate, the separations between the Society's Announcements, Members and Jobs mailing lists must be maintained in order to ensure that this continues. It might be appropriate to seek guidance on whether it is permissible to promote events hosted by or with other clubs (including the Oxford Geek Nights), or sponsored by particular organisations without sharing our mailing-lists.
Moreover, “personal data must be adequate and not excessive for the purpose(s) for which they are processed”. The Society's member database has fields for addresses, phone number, year of matriculation and status (undergraduate within the .ox.ac.uk domain, student within the .ox.ac.uk domain, other within the .ox.ac.uk domain or outside of the .ox.ac.uk domain). The “Application for Membership” form also asks for the applicant's College, course (and the date at which it ends), home address and telephone number, and date of birth. In many of the database entries only the status field is populated, but the purpose of collecting all of these data remains questionable. Addresses might be collected for the purpose of sending termcards, but it seems that the Society has discontinued the practice of printing termcards, opting instead to use only electronic versions. Moreover, the database contains a separate “Termcard to:” field, which would render this use superfluous. It is unclear whether there is any reason for collecting phone numbers, years of matriculation, course information, or dates of birth.
The guidelines also specify that “appropriate technical and organisational measures must be taken to prevent unauthorised/unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss, destruction, damage; so if the club is holding its data on computer, you need to be careful about who is able to access and process the data; even if your records are paper-based, they must be kept secure” (emphasis in original) Not all of the Society's machines are located within the University. Personal information may or may not currently be stored outside of the University, but it would be prudent to ensure that these data are kept within the University in order to limit who is able to access it. Moreover, because the members database is accessible from the internet (although password-protected), it must be ensured that technical measures prevent attempts at guessing the password if this has not already been done.
Finally, the guidelines advise that “When people become club members, or renew their subscriptions, it is important to make clear to them what personal data will be held and what use the club wants to make of this.” It would therefore be advisable to append a disclaimer to this effect to the membership application forms, as well as indicating to applicants what rights they have under the Data Protection Act.
Compliance with the Clubs Committee's guidelines
The Clubs Committee Provides pro forma constitutions to guide societies in establishing their own . There are significant areas of difference between the sample constitution and the CompSoc's constitution. However, the latest revision of the Society's constitution dates from 2003, and this resource might not have been available at the time (the pro forma constitution is dated 2007). There is no requirement to follow the format of this document, but it would be advisable to make sure we follow them in spirit if not to the letter. The salience of these issues is difficult to determine, but there are some specific points should probably be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities. The following divergences are listed under the relevant headings from the pro forma constitution.
Name and Functions: Although the name and functions of the society are defined in a similar way to the guidelines, there is no statement to the effect that “the income and property of the Club shall be applied solely to [the] objects [of the Club].”
Compliance: No provision is made for compliance with the Code of Conduct on Safety Matters, or for participation in events overseas.
The Committee: The roles of the Committee's officers are not described in as much detail as in the guidelines.
Membership: The CompSoc constitution does not contain a provision to allow visiting students to join as Ordinary Members. Moreover, the provision for removing members allows this do be done by the Committee in consultation with the Senior Member, while the guidelines suggest that the decision should be made by the Committee, with a right to appeal to the Senior Member.
Dissolution: The terms of the distribution of the Society's assets in case of dissolution seem to be the opposite of those in the guidelines, which specifically state that “assets shall not be distributed amongst the members”.
Indemnification: In addition, the Constitution does not make sufficient provisions for the indemnification of Committee members or officers of the Society, or for the reimbursement of expenses. These would seem to be the most significant omission.
The current Constitution makes many of the same provisions as the pro forma document, but it does not meet them all. Those which are met are typically not described in as much detail. While it must be noted that the current constitution (and previous versions thereof), have served the Society well for more than 20 years, it would be desirable to bring it up to date with current best practices. There is nothing of immediate and pressing concern that needs to be remedied, but the Constitution could benefit from these clarifications.
Other technical and substantive issues
Technical issues
The Society's official name is “Oxford University Computer Society”, but it might be more appropriate for it to be named “University of Oxford Computer Society”, using the name of the University as given on its web site.
The process of appointment of the Senior Member is not made clear.
“Resident Ordinary Membership” is not defined, although “Ordinary Membership” is. The former is used three times in the constitution.
Substantive issues
It is not clear that “the use of IT, computers and the Internet” in the University needs to be promoted any longer, nor that the Society has any particular role to play in “the exchange of information and expertise between Members”. Most, if not all, University departments and Colleges provide IT support and have developed their own infrastructure, students are familiar with the technology that was once a minority interest. While members do continue to have significant expertise, it is unclear which setting would best allow them to exchange it. Although members of the society have independently responded to specific requests for assistance, the Society does not have procedures in place to provide this itself. The most common requests for assistance from outside the society are from people seeking assistance with web development and design. Because of this, it would be useful to produce and promote a register of members' skills and experience in web development in order to match requests with those who can fulfil them. This is probably the most important form of outreach that we can provide.
The functions of the Society as defined in the Constitution are almost entirely inwards-looking. In practice, the Society has organised more outward-looking events, collaborated with other groups, and engaged with industry (notably through the provisions of careers information and opportunities). This is a trend that must continue: computers are not the niche interest that they were in 1978, but the Society can still provide is a degree of expertise and informed opinion on technology matters. It would therefore be appropriate to indicate in the Constitution that the Society also seeks to organise joint events with other groups, and to make links with the academic, business and wider communities. The constituency that the Society cam usefully serve has changed throughout the years. Perhaps the most important action to ensure that it remains relevant is to determine who whose needs CompSoc should continue to address.