|
Grex > Coop12 > #194: Motion to encourage staff delegation of responsibility | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
flem
|
|
response 25 of 120:
| 
Jun 4 15:45 UTC 2003 |
Hmm, that's not exactly the impression that I got from that discussion, but
I'm having a hard time articulating in what way my impression differs.
I think everyone is in agreement that it would be a Good Thing if staff
delegated responsibility for certain maintenance tasks, such as party channel
administration, at their discretion. That's not in dispute. Furthermore,
it seems pretty clear that, in light of the resolution remmers posted above,
staff is at liberty to do so right now. The fact that this does not seem to
happen is arguably a problem, but -- here's my key point -- I don't think the
proposal under discussion will help to solve that problem.
|
carson
|
|
response 26 of 120:
|
Jun 4 17:29 UTC 2003 |
(so, what happens if this proposal goes up for a vote and is defeated?
would that invalidate the previous policy, which it largely duplicates?)
|
other
|
|
response 27 of 120:
|
Jun 4 18:00 UTC 2003 |
No. We don't have that kind of precedental system. The vote on a proposal
is exclusively on the proposal as worded at the time of the vote.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 28 of 120:
|
Jun 5 00:39 UTC 2003 |
Why doesn't some staff member just go ahead and appoint a partyadm?
|
jp2
|
|
response 29 of 120:
|
Jun 5 00:57 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 30 of 120:
|
Jun 5 02:31 UTC 2003 |
I've proposed that we have a staff meeting real soon, with the discussion
of staff candidates as a top priority and with the discussion of
the new Grex as the second priority. We didn't get a date set yet.
Someone needs to give that process a kick in the rear - see if we can
get a decent number of people to agree to a date.
Why don't I go out and appoint a partyadm? Well, there were three
or four candidates, and I'd probably have to think of a good reason
for choosing one. I don't have the brain space for that right now.
Aside from a whole lot going on in my life, and some amount of stuff
going in in my work, I'm putting in a lot of hours on the new Grex.
I don't want to deal with this too.
Probably there is a systemic problem here too. Most staffers like to
do some talking to other staffers before taking any action in an area
that isn't in their usual area of operations. This is in principle
a good thing. The problem is that not many staffers are very good
at communicating these days. Some don't read the staff conference.
Some don't read the staff email (I just recently discovered the my
staff email was broken, so I'm not innocent). Staff meetings are no
longer frequent. So, to a large degree, we can't talk to each other.
So we are reluctant to make any decisions.
We should have a staff meeting. If only we could talk to each other
enough to pick a meeting time.
Maybe we need to reinstitute regular staff meetings. Maybe we need
a "chief of staff" whose job is to talk to all the other staff people
and keep communications working. Or an alternate title might be better -
"Grex catherd" maybe.
|
spooked
|
|
response 31 of 120:
|
Jun 5 02:53 UTC 2003 |
I, as a staffer, wish to appoint Eric (other) as a partyadm if he wants
the position.
What partyadm-specific privileges do you need Eric? I should be competent
enough to give (or negotiate with others) the privileges he needs for the
responsibility.
Anyone disagree? Beat me down now...
|
other
|
|
response 32 of 120:
|
Jun 5 02:59 UTC 2003 |
I thought partyadm was a group and all necessary privileges were part and
parcel of group membership, or at least came automatically with it.
|
carson
|
|
response 33 of 120:
|
Jun 5 03:04 UTC 2003 |
re #30: (why pick just one? there's "five" now!)
|
other
|
|
response 34 of 120:
|
Jun 5 03:15 UTC 2003 |
You know... if there are five partyadms and requests are going unresponded
to, then what possible harm could there be in having nine partyadms if
four additional people have volunteered and seem by all reasonable account
to be responsible people?
And just so I'm sure I understand the process, would someone please tell
me just exactly what it takes to actually provide adm privileges to a user
for party, lynx, cf, &c.? I'm of the impression that in most cases it is
simply a matter of running a command which adds the user to the specified
admin group -- a process which I estimate takes less than a minute at the
extreme, possibly including the time it takes to log in as root, if
necessary.
|
cross
|
|
response 35 of 120:
|
Jun 5 03:36 UTC 2003 |
Aw, for crying out loud, people, just add other to the damn group. Who
would possibly object to that?
|
spooked
|
|
response 36 of 120:
|
Jun 5 08:07 UTC 2003 |
I'm about to add other, gelinas, and carson to partyadm.
Now get to work :)
|
spooked
|
|
response 37 of 120:
|
Jun 5 08:24 UTC 2003 |
I've added other,gelinas,carson to group membership of partyadm in
/etc/group so you should be able to read/write/execute the appropriate
files bestowed upon the partyadm role. I'm not sure where there is good
documentation on what you need to do - I think other already has some.
A good person to ask about partyadm stuff is valerie. Remember, as
scott pointed out there isn't much demand for party admin stuff these
days so don't expect to be too busy - but, if requests do come up, at
least we will have some active partyadm's again.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 38 of 120:
|
Jun 5 12:50 UTC 2003 |
Thank you, Sir. Now if some kind soul would add us to the partyadm mail
group, things should be just peachy.
|
janc
|
|
response 39 of 120:
|
Jun 5 13:21 UTC 2003 |
Thanks Mic.
|
janc
|
|
response 40 of 120:
|
Jun 5 13:29 UTC 2003 |
I don't know if there is any partyadm documentation as such. Reading 'man
party' would likely be a good starting point.
|
other
|
|
response 41 of 120:
|
Jun 5 14:11 UTC 2003 |
There is an item in the staff conference specifically for partyadm
information.
Of course, you have to be permitted to read the staff conference to access
it...
Thanks Mic.
|
spooked
|
|
response 42 of 120:
|
Jun 6 01:20 UTC 2003 |
I updated /etc/aliases so that the new partyadm trio are also on the
partyadm mail.
One or more of you, please let me know you got my test mail to that
address.
|
carson
|
|
response 43 of 120:
|
Jun 6 07:46 UTC 2003 |
(snow should probably be removed from the partyadm mail alias until she
gets around to cleaning out her mailbox...)
|
spooked
|
|
response 44 of 120:
|
Jun 6 08:10 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, I noticed that, too.
I also heard back from Valerie who is reluctant to be on the list.
So, I'm going to remove snow and valerie from the list until I hear
otherwise from them.
|
jlamb
|
|
response 45 of 120:
|
Jun 9 04:06 UTC 2003 |
I would Gladly Volunteer To help Grex, now that School is out of the
way, and i have oodles of free time.
|
naftee
|
|
response 46 of 120:
|
Jun 11 03:17 UTC 2003 |
I support jlamb as a new party admin.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 47 of 120:
|
Jun 11 18:10 UTC 2003 |
Me too.
|
other
|
|
response 48 of 120:
|
Jun 19 04:59 UTC 2003 |
We seem to have forgotten to commence voting. Mr. Remmers, sir. If you
please...
|
remmers
|
|
response 49 of 120:
|
Jun 19 14:46 UTC 2003 |
Nope, didn't forget. You didn't do the "At the end of two weeks, the
author may then submit a final version for a vote by the membership"
step to confirm that you wanted to bring this to a vote, as specified
in Article 5a of the bylaws. The author always has the option of
deciding whether or not to bring a proposal to a vote at the end of
the discussion period; hence that requirement.
Am I to assume that you want this voted on? If so, what is the final
wording? The same as give in response #0?
|