|
Grex > Coop6 > #11: Proposed Staff Appointment Policy | |
|
| Author |
Message |
remmers
|
|
Proposed Staff Appointment Policy
| 
Sep 23 18:41 UTC 1994 |
(I should have entered this a while ago, but forgot.)
At the last board meeting, I made the following proposal regarding
staff appointment policy:
Staff may at its discretion grant specific resources to qualified
individuals for the purpose of performing work that is beneficial
to Grex. Examples of such resources would be write access to
selected directories in order to modify data files or to install
software.
Root access, access to the staff conference, and access to the
"baff" mailing list shall be with the advice and consent of the
board.
(For the purposes of this motion, a member of "staff" is defined to
be any individual having one or more of the access privileges
enumerated in the second paragraph.)
Rationale: The above is consistent with recent practice, but Grex
currently has no official policy regarding appointments to staff.
The proposed policy would let staff pick people to help out in
specific areas but would assure an opportunity for public review
before a permanent, ongoing staff appointment was made.
This was discussed briefly at the August board meeting and tabled
so that there could be public discussion in coop.
The only controversial point in the August discussion concerned root
access. Some people felt that granting temporary root access should
be within staff's discretion; others that any root access, temporary
or otherwise, should require approval of the board. What do other
folks think?
|
| 9 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 1 of 9:
|
Sep 23 20:09 UTC 1994 |
I gues the proposal as it stands is all right. I'm not one
much for formalizing things but if everyone else thinks its
important then so be it.
The part of temporary root access is important however, in
that if we have a real emergency and the regular staff is out
or busy on other things, I don't want to see a "rule" get in the
way of our fixing something. We haven't hit this situation yet,
but if we do, I don't want to be in a position of having to track
board folks down in order to get permission to add someone.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 9:
|
Sep 23 20:56 UTC 1994 |
"Staff may at its" is a bit unclear whether an individual staff member can
do this, or if it requires a majority, or even unanimous consent ("Staff",
as an "it", appears to me to mean unanimous). The policy does provide a
mix of permissions, which I have not thought out fully. For example, by
this policy, board members (like me) that do not have "full" staff
privileges, can grant resources of some sort (which I can't think of). It
*seems* OK, but I hope everyone will mull over these tangential
implications.
|
remmers
|
|
response 3 of 9:
|
Sep 23 22:04 UTC 1994 |
I'd leave it to the discretion of staff what "staff discretion" means.
If they can't exercise good judgement, they shouldn't be staff. But
I'd hope they'd keep it loose and informal, and I'd like to keep the
official policy simple. If as a staff member I spot someone who could
do something that I'd otherwise have to do myself, I'd like to be able
to give them the resources to do it without going through a
bureaucratic procedure beforehand.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 9:
|
Sep 24 04:32 UTC 1994 |
Then it would be better to start the statement with:
"Staff members may, at their individual discretion, grant...."
|
popcorn
|
|
response 5 of 9:
|
Sep 24 13:25 UTC 1994 |
I asked Kent to be Grex's Official Figlet Keeper, without consulting anyone.
Was this bad?
I'd say net good comes out of it.
|
davel
|
|
response 6 of 9:
|
Sep 24 15:34 UTC 1994 |
Wonderful, an unofficial official position.
Of *course* that's not bad.
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 9:
|
Sep 24 17:35 UTC 1994 |
Re #4: I'd prefer to keep the wording non-specific and leave it to
staff people to work out among themselves how to manage staff
business. I see no reason for the board to dictate that to them.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 9:
|
Sep 24 19:27 UTC 1994 |
Sigh. For maximum flexibility, then, it should be "...at their
discretion...".
|
remmers
|
|
response 9 of 9:
|
Sep 24 22:58 UTC 1994 |
Whatever.
|