|
Grex > Agorage > #7: The Temporary Cross Root Incident Item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 128 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 41 of 128:
| 
Sep 25 13:23 UTC 2006 |
I'm deeply troubled when a Grex staffer can just unilaterally decide to
pull someone else's administrative rights in a non-emergency situation
like this. It is a clear usurpation of BoD powers, and constitutes
insubordination.
I am simply appalled.
|
scholar
|
|
response 42 of 128:
|
Sep 25 14:02 UTC 2006 |
What are we losing faster, members or staffers?
|
cross
|
|
response 43 of 128:
|
Sep 25 17:29 UTC 2006 |
Membership has halved in the past few years, but I don't think the same is
true of staff.
|
tod
|
|
response 44 of 128:
|
Sep 25 17:35 UTC 2006 |
re #39
I wouldn't blame you a bit if you resigned your offer to be on staff. It is
one thing to protect the system but entirely another to remove someone from
staff without even communicating or apologizing for the urgency to that
person. Unfortunately, I've seen this behavior in the past amongst Grex staff
and the culture is such that people are too timid to address or correct the
behavior of the longtime participants.
|
naftee
|
|
response 45 of 128:
|
Sep 25 21:59 UTC 2006 |
pretty soon, GreX is going to have fewer active staffers than m-net !
|
cross
|
|
response 46 of 128:
|
Sep 25 22:28 UTC 2006 |
Todd is right. There are multiple issues at here. Not only is there a policy
issue, there's an issue of culture on staff.
|
cross
|
|
response 47 of 128:
|
Sep 25 22:57 UTC 2006 |
I'm concerned that Steve hasn't chimed in here. I think it would be unfair
to draw conclusions without hearing his side of the story.
|
tod
|
|
response 48 of 128:
|
Sep 25 23:00 UTC 2006 |
Perhaps staff should draft some policies on change management (including
protocols for how to handle compliance thereof.) The protocols can include
a process for pushing complaints onto the agenda of a board meeting within
a week's notice and also a process for both parties to submit their paragraph
of response for the board to review.
If the board is unwilling to accomodate staff complaints about abuse against
set procedures then the membership can issue a vote of no confidence against
the offending board members.
|
eprom
|
|
response 49 of 128:
|
Sep 25 23:06 UTC 2006 |
I would like to see a vote of censure at the next board meeting.
|
steve
|
|
response 50 of 128:
|
Sep 25 23:06 UTC 2006 |
When I get home I'll enter stuff here. I'm trying to get stuff done at
work at the moment.
|
cross
|
|
response 51 of 128:
|
Sep 25 23:29 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #50; Very well.
Regarding #49; Against who?
|
cross
|
|
response 52 of 128:
|
Sep 25 23:33 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #48; That seems like a reasonable idea.
|
eprom
|
|
response 53 of 128:
|
Sep 26 00:21 UTC 2006 |
when grex was perpetually down a few months agos, and nobody on staff
would step up to the plate to take responsibilty for the machine, I
suggested that there be a designated sysadmin position, and a few
people started whining about how it was only a volunteer position and
that grex operates on a system where all the staff does their own thing,
essentially.
Funny, now that grex is working fine again, steve wants to act as a
defacto sysadmin and be the judge, jury and executioner of who's on
staff at his discretion.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 54 of 128:
|
Sep 26 00:28 UTC 2006 |
Well, I think there should be a sysadmin. I think the board should adopt
time tested practices on IT organization. But until that happens
formally, anybody who takes it upon themselves to act as the defacto
sysadmin is being insubordinate.
|
cross
|
|
response 55 of 128:
|
Sep 26 00:43 UTC 2006 |
I'm not opposed to the idea (not that my opinion really matters). When you
proposed that, Jeff, I was for it. I think Nate's proposal is a little
different, which is why I've got some questions. In theory, it's a good idea.
In practice given grex's culture, I'm afraid it might have the opposite of
the intended effect.
|
tod
|
|
response 56 of 128:
|
Sep 26 00:52 UTC 2006 |
The other way to do it is to list all the homegrown apps along with owner from
staff and then everybody on staff agrees on who gets what. For now, lets just
say everything in ./ belongs to STeve.
*snicker*
|
cross
|
|
response 57 of 128:
|
Sep 26 00:55 UTC 2006 |
(Or get rid of as many of the home-grown apps as possible....)
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 58 of 128:
|
Sep 26 03:18 UTC 2006 |
I think the reason Mic's perms haven't been restored is because the board has
to pass judgement first. I sense a difference in thinking; Staff does things
by the book (follows procedure) and i wouldn't be surprised if it was all a
little formal <grin>, hehe, knocking the gavel and all that..nice and stody
is the word that comes to mind <g>. Anyway, where as you guys just want it
done quickly..mick's innocent, that's conclusive since the charter is
ambiguous etc etc..so just heave him back in pronto and get on with things is
what you guys want to do.. I personally feel this is wrong though it gets
work done quickly.
About the root access thing: I don't feel it would be wise to allow one staff
member to grant root without all the other staff members knowing why it was
being given and aprroving it. Instead of abandoning protocol we should try
and make it more efficient.
eg: The trouble as i see it right now is that staff members get held up with
work and don't log into Grex to keep abreast off what's happening.Perhaps we
could do this: After suitable discussion on the conferences one staff member
decides to grant access to cross. Mic then posts on a public conference,
readable by all a draft of what's to be done. Staff gets a copy off it via
email.. So they can't weasel out by saying they had no clue..Would that
suffice?
RE: A sys-admin: Dual control is in-efficient at best. Certainly someone
should be in charge of day to day running while staff handles their respective
jobs. However, the demarcation should be clear and i doubt that's possible.
In the end no system will work if the people involved are crappy or not
dedicated. Ideally Grex should just run itself <g>
|
other
|
|
response 59 of 128:
|
Sep 26 04:39 UTC 2006 |
I've already said that I think the removal of mic's staff privileges is
a violation of protocol, but at this point I want to add that the longer
he remains in this diminished position, the more egregious this
violation becomes.
I respectfully request the immediate restoration of mic's privileges,
and if the board and/or staff decide to take punitive action (a position
I would absolutely and vehemently oppose) they can do it when they have
decided in accordance with policy and protocol. Frankly, I consider the
continuing banishment of a staff member for a harmless violation of an
arguably ambiguous policy to be an inexcusable and damaging overreaction.
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 60 of 128:
|
Sep 26 07:27 UTC 2006 |
Re #59: How is removal of mic's privileges a violation of protocol? Where does
it say that one staff member CANNOT kick out/deny access/lock out another
staff member? As i see it, mick has/had just as much right to revoke STeve's
permissions, in fact Mick could possibly "break in" to Grex revoke STeve's
perms and i doubt the board can do anything <grin>. Well..they could heave
him out for installing a backdoor, but certainly not for "breaking in"..since
legally he has every right to be "in" and it's just STeve's point of view
against his.
|
spooked
|
|
response 61 of 128:
|
Sep 26 08:30 UTC 2006 |
I am very disillusioned at this point in time with the staff/baff's
position of not restoring my privileges.
In fact, they have not even given me an explanation.
I'll give it another day, and then I'll resign as it's looking more and
more as if that is what they are hoping will eventuate.
*shrugs*
|
cross
|
|
response 62 of 128:
|
Sep 26 13:38 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, the fact that no one has even explained what happened to Mic's access
is really not just bad, but straight rude.
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 63 of 128:
|
Sep 26 13:56 UTC 2006 |
If the two of you will postpone the suicide till after the board meets we will
all be very grateful! And please don't mind read! It's not rude - the matter
is subjudice - staff can't/should not comment on the matter! In any case since
neither of you have done any wrong whatsoever and since every other Harry on
Grex is rooting for you guys..Sheesh! Whats with the gloomy faces! Plus, it's
prolly only STeve who MAY crib a bit..frankly speaking i doubt he would.
Neither of you may match up to his high ideals (expecting cross to play the
martyrd saint and divine things etc etc) but barring that he should not have
any objections..I'll bet they apologise for causing so much confusion and
verbiage! And i'll bet they say that they appreciate your work, but beyond
that..well don't expect them to crawl..after all the ambiguity wasn't
deliberate..
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 64 of 128:
|
Sep 26 14:04 UTC 2006 |
Re #61 And don't expect them (staff) to fly to your rescue and bail you out!
They can't because that would be compounding STeve's whatever...in the sense
that..STeve's taken a decision against you..they can't just over-ride him and
heave you back in pronto without first listening to the guy..give it
time..i'll bet they reinstate you with nary a blemish on your charecter.
|
janc
|
|
response 65 of 128:
|
Sep 26 15:56 UTC 2006 |
I can't get into a big fury about this, because, as it happens, I am
pretty confortable with Dan having root access. So no harm done.
However, I agree that this is a pretty huge deviation from accepted
policy. The talk in the policy about granting limited access to
specific users, refered to things like the "cfadm" account and treasurer
account, that allow people to do very specific things in very specific
parts of the system. In some cases, we've given people temporary access
to root, but it was done with a person with official access to root
logging them in and sitting next to them the whole time they were on (I
remember watching Mike McNalley do some work on Grex and having keats
watch me while I did work on M-Net).
To just hand someone root, access and let them use it without oversight
is a declaration of total trust in that person. While I may trust Dan
that far, and Mic may, and we may even be well justified in that, it
isn't really our perogative to make that decision for Grex. That has
always been the board's perogative. And that's as it should be. If the
board doesn't decide who is root, then the board really isn't in any
substantive control of Grex.
So I do feel that this was an improper action.
Please don't do it again.
Thanks.
|