|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 106 responses total. |
kaplan
|
|
response 50 of 106:
| 
Feb 1 04:55 UTC 1997 |
I'm under the impresion that a cfadm could be on the staff in an
organizational sense although the cfadm need not have root password, staff
mail, pumpkin keys, etc.
|
davel
|
|
response 51 of 106:
|
Feb 1 13:37 UTC 1997 |
Right, except for one small cfadm job: when a conference is deleted (rare
occasion), all participation files for that conference need to be nuked as
well. That takes root. Someday someone will write a suid-root perl program
or something to take care of it, maybe - shouldn't be too hard to make that
reasonably bulletproof.
|
remmers
|
|
response 52 of 106:
|
Feb 1 14:34 UTC 1997 |
Re #48: There's hasn't been much in the way of "policy items
relevant to the cfadm role". The idea has always been that cfadm
is a facilitator, helping fw's get conferences set up, doing
restarts on request, etc., and otherwise letting conferences run
themselves. As a cfadm I have *NEVER* thought of myself as a
"conference cop" and don't want to.
If we do start making rules and regs for conferences, with cfadm
as "enforcer", I think what we'd start attracting people to the
position who enjoy playing bureaucrat, playing policeman, riding
shotgun, etc. I would not like to see that happen to Grex.
|
dpc
|
|
response 53 of 106:
|
Feb 1 17:43 UTC 1997 |
Cfadm is a "superuser" and thus IMO is "staff", even though cfadm
doesn't have root. I thought staff was anyone who had any kind
of superpowers.
Cfadm is shorthand for "conference administrator." Cfadm
already has the tools for adding/deleting fws and links, and I
believe would be the logical person to be the "enforcer" under
Valerie's proposal. If Grex wants to have this kind of active
conference administration, then we will need to have cfadms who
are willing to be cops.
|
russ
|
|
response 54 of 106:
|
Feb 1 19:29 UTC 1997 |
Is the "rule" about no linkage out of closed conferences just a
proposal? This confusion is another reason to write things down,
and maybe have some sort of history showing how things have been
handled previously; a sort of "common practices" log.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 55 of 106:
|
Feb 2 00:46 UTC 1997 |
There are no closed conferences on Grex, thus no rule albout linking.
*IF* members vote to "close" some conferences to unregistered users coming
in through the web, then there probably will be some "closed" (to unregistered
web readers) conferences. But the conferences will still be open to
"observers" who telnet or dial in.
|
dang
|
|
response 56 of 106:
|
Feb 2 02:24 UTC 1997 |
Sorry, by staff I meant root, keys, and staff mailing list, as those were the
three levels of "staff" as the board voted on them that I knew of. You are
right in that cfadm does have special privilages, and so can be considered
part of staff. I should have said root.
|
janc
|
|
response 57 of 106:
|
Feb 2 07:20 UTC 1997 |
There are various shades of staffness. It's not obvious to me that enforcing
this proposal would be cfadm's job.
Re #51: Years ago, I wrote a "killpart" program that allowed cfadm on M-Net
to kill all user's participation files for a conference. It would be painless
to install here if we needed it. (I have no idea if it is still being used
on M-Net.)
|
valerie
|
|
response 58 of 106:
|
Feb 2 07:43 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 59 of 106:
|
Feb 2 10:17 UTC 1997 |
ummm, i think there are some 'restricted access' conferences on grex.
correct me if that's incorrect (dont include staff.cf).
|
davel
|
|
response 60 of 106:
|
Feb 2 12:12 UTC 1997 |
Other than the staff conference, there are *no* restricted-access conferences
on Grex. This has been discussed at length in the past.
|
dpc
|
|
response 61 of 106:
|
Feb 2 19:52 UTC 1997 |
The problem with the present proposal in #27 is that it requires
a staff person (logically cfadm) to decide on mental states such
as deliberateness, maliciousness, and intentionalness. Well, that's
at least one problem with it.
|
snafu
|
|
response 62 of 106:
|
Feb 2 22:02 UTC 1997 |
I think that's fairly simple, or will be once we decide on anonymous
reading/writing. It'll be "You linked an item from this closed conference to
your open conference... " That's pretty clear cut in my opinion...
|
remmers
|
|
response 63 of 106:
|
Feb 3 12:43 UTC 1997 |
No it's not. They might have forgotten the rule, or not realized
that the conference they were linking from was "closed".
|
richard
|
|
response 64 of 106:
|
Feb 3 15:50 UTC 1997 |
This rule is unneccesary because in most confs on grex, including the two
I helped start, there are multiple fw's. This is *why* its a good idea to
have more than one fair witness per conf actually. I may be headstrong
but I wouldnt go off on a political agenda unless the other fw agreed with
me, because the conference is a shared creation.
My *threat* (ifyou want to call it that, I dont) was that if a discussion
was really interesting, I reserved the right to enter a *new* item in an
open conf and copy over the content. So even unregistered users could
read it.
|
jenna
|
|
response 65 of 106:
|
Feb 4 00:29 UTC 1997 |
I don't know... i think cut and pasting the content so obvioulsy is rpetty
slimy
Richard...
|
orinoco
|
|
response 66 of 106:
|
Feb 6 23:03 UTC 1997 |
Perhaps this has been discussed elsewhere, but I have given up on following
the main debate item on this topic...
How feasible would it be t write a program of some sort to act as a
'conference cop'--in other words, whenever an item is linked, to check whether
it's being linked out of a closed conference, and if it is, to stop it being
linked? This would keep the cfadm from having to exercise personal judgemetnt
on the maliciousness, etc., of an illegal linking, by preventing an illegal
linking from happening.
Alternately, how about this? If a cfadm finds an illegal linking, they remove
the item from the conference it was illegaly linked to, and alert someone more
qualified to decide whether or not to remove the offenders' fw status (staff
as a whole, the board, or whoever that deciision would rest with).
|
remmers
|
|
response 67 of 106:
|
Feb 7 08:19 UTC 1997 |
Except for the staff conference, there aren't any "closed"
conferences on Grex. I assume what you're really talking about
is not-readable-without-login-id's conferences.
Yeah, it's been discussed elsewhere. We're not in a position to
enforce it with software because it require modifying Picospan,
which we don't have source to. Personally, I find alternative
two repugnant.
|
davel
|
|
response 68 of 106:
|
Feb 7 10:59 UTC 1997 |
Why twice, John?
|
remmers
|
|
response 69 of 106:
|
Feb 7 13:12 UTC 1997 |
?
|
davel
|
|
response 70 of 106:
|
Feb 7 21:09 UTC 1997 |
> Yeah, it's been discussed elsewhere. We're not in a position to
> enforce it with software because it require modifying Picospan,
> which we don't have source to. Personally, I find alternative
> two repugnant.
^^^
|
ryan1
|
|
response 71 of 106:
|
Feb 7 21:28 UTC 1997 |
I've heard time and time again that the source for picospan is not
available. But when Grex upgraded to the Sun4, I heard *EVERYTHING* had
to be recompiled. How can this be? Obviously, picospan must have been
recompiled too?
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 106:
|
Feb 7 22:45 UTC 1997 |
Valerie is now proposing in item #27 that alllows all confs to be able to
change their accesss policies regarding unregistered reading at any time.
This will cause all kinds of problems for any cfadmin because they will have
to handle recurring requests to open or close this conf or that conf. Also
the proposal calls for removing an fw who links from a closed conf, and since
it is going to be difficult under this plan to even know for sure which confs
are open and which arent, the cfadmin is going to be in the political hotseat.
Forced by policy to remove those fw's who wrongly link, yet having to
arbitrate whether said linking was done by accident .etc
This could make cfadmin one of the least desireable o f all staff positions
IMO.
|
dang
|
|
response 73 of 106:
|
Feb 7 23:51 UTC 1997 |
We have a liscense for the use of a binary version of picospan. Marcus has
the source. He can recompile it for us, but we cannot change it.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 74 of 106:
|
Feb 8 02:25 UTC 1997 |
remmers--why repugnant? It seems that that would be a better alternative than
requiring a lone staff member to decide whether to remove the fw's status.
Why force an individual to make an admittedly very dificult and subjective
decision, when that decision could instead be made by they staff as a whole?
As richard has pointed out, forcing the cfadmins to make this decision alone
would make their jobs very difficult.
|
