1 new of 61 responses total.
Regarding #5; The membership explicitly requested that Steve pulling Mic's access be on the agenda. I'm very disappointed that it wasn't really addressed, paricularly since it wasn't immediately restored. If Steve truly felt that grex was in danger, then he surely did the right thing in the moment. But then it surely became clear that the immediate cause of the incident was a communication breakdown and a difference of policy interpretation and not any malicious intent. It is clear Mic wouldn't have done the same thing again. Now, the board has met and agreed on an interpretation of the policy which clearly implies that both Mic and myself were wrong with our interpretations. (I do wish they'd update the language a bit to be more explicit, but hey, you can't win 'em all.) But no where in this fiasco has *anyone* thought that anyone else was acting maliciously, trying to hurt the system, or doing *anything* permanently damaging. Well, maybe that was Steve's initial reaction, but I hope he quickly came to see that that wasn't the case. Why, then, the delay? This is what has come to concern me more than anything else at this point. And actually, it's not even really about this episode: it's about the lack of a generic policy around this matter. If someone gets confused and sees someone installing a new version of emacs, are they going to cut off their access until the next board meeting? I certainly hope not! If Mic felt that Steve was purposely damaging the system, then yes, he'd be justified in yanking his access. If after the evidence was presented it was clear that Mic had been wrong, then surely Steve's access should be restored. Any delay in that would be an insult. I don't believe a hierarchy is necessary, and I certainly don't believe one is desirable. A liason position along the lines of that posed by eprom and nharmon might not be a bad idea, but is somewhat different. Certainly, a policy along the lines of what Eric was proposing cannot but be a good thing. Regarding #6; I have plenty of respect and admiration for Steve. I thought I'd made that clear since this incident happened. I just think he was wrong. It's nothig personal. I do think Todd is right that it's a bit of a cop-out not to discuss Steve's actions. Besides, I'd say this episode is almost over. But I do feel strongly that the issue of when and under what circumstances staff can revoke the access of other staff needs to be addressed. Regarding #9; I agree. Regarding #10; You are a bigger man than I. I quit staff because I felt insulted by a board member who makes little bones about having a personal dislike for me.
You have several choices: