|
Grex > Coop12 > #194: Motion to encourage staff delegation of responsibility | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 66 of 120:
| 
Jun 21 19:12 UTC 2003 |
If it passes, the new proposal will replace the existing one, won't it?
I don't think it's proper to use a referendum to clarify an existing
policy. I think that's the job of the Board. The users give a
direction, but the Board handles how it's implemented. If the staff's
discretion to appoint non-root staff members is not being applied
appropriately, the Board should correct it.
I voted "yes", but did so because I didn't want to send the message
that the staff shouldn't be taking appropriate action such as
appointing assistants.
I was caught by surprise when I saw this was being voted on. If I'd
thought there was any chance of that, I'd have objected to the vague
phrasing and inappropriateness of a referendum before now.
Whether it passes or fails, nothing will have been accomplished.
There's no question of direction here. Everyone appears to agree on
what would be good. The referendum isn't resolving anything.
|
janc
|
|
response 67 of 120:
|
Jun 21 19:44 UTC 2003 |
I voted "no" for reasons stated above. There are problems with staff,
but this doesn't do anything to fix any of them.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 120:
|
Jun 22 17:44 UTC 2003 |
Re #66: no, a new policy does not replace an old policy unless the motion
specifies that it should. It is just carelessness that has led to this
motion being proposed when a somewhat similar one is on the books.
Re #65: what I would suggest is having an item along the lines of a public
"To Do" list for staff, much like the classified conference. Suggestions
can be hashed out in other items and if found desirable they are added to
the "To Do" item by staff, and addressed as time and opportunity provide,
and frozen or killed when done. I am not suggesting in this a particular
procedure for placing things on the To Do list - only creating the list so
good ideas do not get forgotten too quickly.
|
cross
|
|
response 69 of 120:
|
Jun 22 19:56 UTC 2003 |
Said list already exists, in garage.
|
scg
|
|
response 70 of 120:
|
Jun 22 23:56 UTC 2003 |
I'm not currently a member, but as a former staff member, I hope the
membership votes no on this.
I'll note that a vote of no doesn't indicate disagreement with the sentiment
of the policy. It doesn't say there shouldn't be new staff members. It only
says that this particular proposal shouldn't become policy.
I do see this as making a rather significant change to the way staff has
always claimed to operate, even if staff doesn't operate that way in practice.
This proposal encourages individual staff members to appoint other low level
staffers, without coordination with the rest of the staff. The practice
several years ago, when the staff seemed to work pretty well, was for this
level of staffers to be appointed after discussion among the whole staff.
Under the new proposal, if all staff members except one were adamantly opposed
to adding somebody to a non-root staff position, the one who supported the
addition could go ahead and make the appointment.
|
other
|
|
response 71 of 120:
|
Jun 23 05:05 UTC 2003 |
Interesting thing to note. It is exactly the scenario described in #70
that I wish to address with this. I think it is silly and pointlessly
bureaucratic for staff to be required to discuss, much less agree on,
appointment of additional volunteers to lower level administrative
positions.
The whole thrust here is that staff already has the implicit, if not
explicit, trust of the organization by virtue of their possession of the
root password, and if that's the case, then they damn well ought to be
entrusted to make the decision to provide the necessary authority to
volunteers who wish to perform services for other users.
If you don't disagree with the sentiment behind this proposal, then what
is it about this particular proposal that fails in your mind to embody
that sentiment in a way with which you CAN agree?
|
gull
|
|
response 72 of 120:
|
Jun 23 14:20 UTC 2003 |
I'm going to abstain on this because I think it's basically a NOP. If
it passes, it duplicates existing policy, so nothing changes either way.
|
other
|
|
response 73 of 120:
|
Jun 23 14:30 UTC 2003 |
It is not a duplication. If it were only that, I'd have withdrawn it.
|
jep
|
|
response 74 of 120:
|
Jun 23 14:44 UTC 2003 |
Even after reading your explanation, Eric, the distinction is not clear
to me. And the distinction will not be clear to anyone in 3 years if
this passes, a discussion comes up about it, and you are not there to
personally explain it.
|
janc
|
|
response 75 of 120:
|
Jun 23 15:06 UTC 2003 |
I think the advance discussion of this didn't happen because most of us
assumed it was moot. Now it's gone forward in a form that doesn't make a lot
of sense to a lot of people.
I think the biggest staff problem has been a communications breakdown. We
used to have regular monthly staff meetings, and it helped a lot to keep
people on a page. When issues came up that needed addressing, it was easy
to discuss them. Then we hit a period where there really wasn't much for
stafff to do. We stopped meeting because staff workload had dropped way down.
Now it is up again, and our lack of communication is hurting us.
Eric is trying to fix the problem by making communication optional in more
cases. Technically it always was optional, but in practice since we had good
communications channels, we did discuss most things. That's why I was
ignorant of the old policy - we didn't operate that way in practice.
Personally, I think a better fix would be to find ways to get communications
among staff working better again. I don't think any policy change is going
to achieve that. It's a much more specific issue - how to get a particular
set of people with a particular set of quirks to operate smoothly.
|
kip
|
|
response 76 of 120:
|
Jun 23 16:31 UTC 2003 |
Is the staff conference not used for this communication? I would imagine,
perhaps incorrectly, that the staff conference is where this communication
would normally take place. Perhaps a policy making participation in that
conference a little more structured or dare I say even mandatory on a regular
basis?
|
mary
|
|
response 77 of 120:
|
Jun 23 17:37 UTC 2003 |
I'm hoping that adding a few new enthusiastic staff members
to the mix will be a help. If nothing else this will tend to
dilute the problem a bit.
|
jep
|
|
response 78 of 120:
|
Jun 23 18:28 UTC 2003 |
If there are communications problems between the staff members, the
answers for Grex users are either to facilitate better communications,
or to improve the staff. The users are crucially involved; it's their
system, not just the staff's. At least that's the theory. In
practice, an argument could be made that, when it comes down to it,
it's STeve and Marcus's system, and very few others count at all. But
that's a side issue.
It's hard to criticize Eric for attempting to rectify the problem, when
it's been a problem for years and no one else is doing anything about
it at all. Give him credit for that. He's the president of Grex, and
certainly is tackling a worthy problem.
It's hard to criticize him for choosing the solution he has picked;
really a compromise between the two available choices. There's really
no way to mandate improved communication from the outside. All of the
staff know how to communicate. They either do it or they don't.
Unfortunately, they don't. The other alternative is dismaying to
contemplate. The staff is insular to an extreme degree, but very
competent and benevolent. Who wants to replace them? Not me. Not
Eric.
Eric's solution seems to me to be an attempt to get the staff to act,
or get others who will act, without letting things just bog down.
Good, I'm for that. I trust all of the staff. I trust them to appoint
proxies.
All of that aside, I still don't see how this proposal gains anything
for Grex, since -- aside from a little cheering-on to use the power
they've got -- it doesn't change anything that I can see.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 79 of 120:
|
Jun 23 18:37 UTC 2003 |
Maybe there should be a proposal that makes it mandatory for the staff
to communicate, either via email, or to read the staff cf. On more
than one occassion, we've come across posts saying something like "I
don't read the cfs anymore, please email me". That's understanding,
people get busy. However, when this lack of communication is proving a
hinderance to the way things work, maybe this needs to be rectified.
janc has pointed out that there used to be regular staff meetings,
that petered off as there was less to do.
Though it does seem like a waste of time to have a meeting when there
is nothing to discuss, it does help keep the flow going for times when
there is something that needs to be hashed out. Hey, if you think
there is no reason to have a meeting some month, send out
communication that says so. The general idea is for staff to expect a
meeting unless otherwise communicated.
I have't really given much thought to Eric's proposal, but the
sentiment seems to be right.
|
aruba
|
|
response 80 of 120:
|
Jun 23 18:42 UTC 2003 |
(Eric was president of Grex last year - Mary is president this year.)
|
jep
|
|
response 81 of 120:
|
Jun 23 19:02 UTC 2003 |
What the staff could probably use would be an administrative manager.
They can do the technical stuff, and do it fabulously.
It would seem helpful for them to have someone to facilitate meetings,
encourage communication, keep lists of stuff that ought to be done but
isn't, figure out what tasks aren't going to get done and find someone
else to do them, and keep the dang users from getting in their way when
they are working on something. It ought to be someone they like and
respect and can work with pretty well.
Actually, I think Eric would be a good choice, if he has the time for a
position like that. Or someone else from the Board.
This is not a user proposal, and is not going to be. I shouldn't have
any say in it, other than to suggest it. Neither should any of the
users, other than to be told things will be handled differently, and
how, if something like this is implemented.
|
jep
|
|
response 82 of 120:
|
Jun 23 19:03 UTC 2003 |
Sorry about the lack of knowledge of who's in what officer position! I
surely didn't mean to show a lack of respect for Mary.
|
mary
|
|
response 83 of 120:
|
Jun 23 20:18 UTC 2003 |
None assumed.
|
flem
|
|
response 84 of 120:
|
Jun 23 20:23 UTC 2003 |
I, too, think that the best solution would be the addition of a couple of
young (or at least new) and eager staffers.
|
kip
|
|
response 85 of 120:
|
Jun 23 21:28 UTC 2003 |
What was the outcome of the discussion in item 187? I believe in some face
to face conversations I had during the past two board meetings that there was
the possibility of a staff meeting to discuss those candidates for new staff
or at the very least an online discussion.
Did that take place? If not, could I suggest that someone at least drop some
email about it?
|
remmers
|
|
response 86 of 120:
|
Jun 23 22:10 UTC 2003 |
There's a staff meeting scheduled for this evening.
Personally, I don't think that new policies that would make things
"mandatory", or formal proposals encouraging attitude changes such
as the one currently being voted on, would be worth the electrons
they'd be printed on. Not with a group of unpaid volunteers, most
of whom squeeze in staff work when they can into busy work schedules.
It's a delicate balancing act -- you want staff to be productive and
responsive, but you don't want people with scare and valuable
technical skills to decide that Grex is more trouble than it's worth.
From a practical standpoint, I think that solutions to recent staff
dysfunctionalities are (a) new blood (I'm glad that people are
volunteering), (b) more frequent face-to-face staff meetings, and
last - but certainly not least - (c) frank and open discussion among
staff and users in Coop, such as has been taking place recently. I
mean, that's one of the things that Coop is supposed to be about.
|
kip
|
|
response 87 of 120:
|
Jun 23 23:10 UTC 2003 |
This evening, eh? Wonder how far down my throat I've managed to stick my
foot. Hmmmm.
Well, I'm going to remove my vote and wait to see what the outcome of the
staff meeting is. This should be interesting.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 88 of 120:
|
Jun 23 23:58 UTC 2003 |
I'm still trying to make up my mind on this.
The only thing I can point to is the recent partyadm action. _Despite_
pointing out that anyone could do it, no-one stepped up to do it.
When someone _did_ decide to act, they asked for support from the rest
of the staff before acting.
Under this proposal, it would at least have been obvious that the action
could be taken without further ado. (That is no guarantee that action
_would_ be taken, though.)
|
scg
|
|
response 89 of 120:
|
Jun 24 03:23 UTC 2003 |
Allow me to put on my consultant hat for a minute.
It is correct to say that giving staff members the root password shows a lot
of trust in the individual staff members. It means that any one of those
staff members, in a moment of sleep deprivation, could destroy the entire
system, and that we trust them enough to know their limits and not do that.
This situation is not unique to Grex, but applies to any organization that
gives people the unrestricted access needed to deal with unexpected
emergencies or make big systems changes.
That doesn't mean that staff members should act alone or without discussion
on making changes, either of a technical or managerial nature. While many
staff functions are routine, follow set procedures, and can safely be done
over and over again without much planning other than was needed the first
time, big system changes should not be treated the same way. Planning things
carefully, and getting somebody else to review the plans, is not an indication
that somebody doesn't know what they're doing. On the contrary, it's a
recognition that even good talented people don't always catch everything.
As somebody who at this point is mostly an outsider on Grex, I can see that
discussions on changing operating systems go on for years. Other changes on
Grex have been discussed less (I remember being with a bunch of staff members,
perhaps even at a staff meeting, when we telnetted into Grex and discovered
the implementation of the telnet queue, which came as a big surprise), but
in my professional capacity I see that sort of "cowboyism" causing a lot more
problems than it solves.
If the current staff isn't doing much communication, I don't think anybody
can order them to. They're volunteers. But given how much coordination is
required, in terms of making sure things get taken care of and making sure
projects (or staff appointments) don't crash into eachother, I don't think
that encouraging even less communication makes a whole lot of sense.
|
gull
|
|
response 90 of 120:
|
Jun 24 13:17 UTC 2003 |
Re #88: I think that there's a difference between *knowing* you can act
without approval from other people, and *wanting* to act without that
approval. I think it's reasonable for staff members to want to discuss
their actions before taking them.
|