Grex Board of Directors Meeting minutes - Oct 26, 2006 In attendance: Lynne Fremont*; John Remmers*, Mary Remmers, Joe Gelinas*, Mark Conger*, Jan Wolter*. * = board member 1. Staff Report It was suggested that Dan Cross would like to do some work on grex that would require that he have root access. A discussion followed where it was mentioned that the usual way for a person to be given root access is for the existing staff to ask the board to approve their choice rather than the board just deciding. Generally technical decisions are left to the staff. The question of who gets to make technical decisions on grex was made. The answer is that generally those decisions are made by staff consensus. That was a policy that worked very well when most members of staff were local but has been more difficult now that there are more remote staff. Generally the process is that staff members take initiative to make changes, hopefully with discussion first and then, if no one else on staff objects, the changes stay. There is no formal process, i.e. no one staff member gets the last word. It was brought up that generally there is no current mission among the staff and almost all of the work they are currently doing is maintenance. It was suggested that perhaps it might be a good idea for the staff to have an ombudsman who could read garage.cf on a regular basis and then make recommendations to staff since not all staff members have the time to stay current with that conference and there are possibly many good ideas for changes there. It was suggested that the board consider what an appropriate reaction would be when one board member takes root away from another. 2. Treasurer s Report. We took in $1031 dollars in September and spent $198. There was one new member (walkman) and four returning members. We have taken in $300 so far in October with one new member (ringbark) 3. Next Meeting: November 28, 8p Zingermans.14 responses total.
So IS cross getting root access to work on email or not??? That whole bit about staff consensus seems irrelevant to me unless there is some sort of behind the scenes dispute about how to handle spam. If there is, where is the online discussion? And if there is no dispute, then there's no reason to delay giving cross root so he can work on the "quagmire."
I think the answer is that unless the current staff recommend that he be given root, he will not be.
The meeting ended about 9:20. Slynne has set a new record on fast posting, and this was not a simple issue to summarize. Great job!
I'm very happy I resigned.
Does this mean that the board did not take any action, and that staff will continue to disfunction? I am perplexed about why staff would need an ombudsperson to read their own conference and summarize it. While I am mindful of the need to respect staff's judgment, I don't understand why lack of clear staff direction means that the board cannot come to consensus and provide that direction.
(In the erased response, I asked a question which I then found the answer to.)
Re #2: I'm with cmgee on this. It seems to me grex is at a critical point in its history. Former staff is drifting away and new staff is not being trained. There are critical issues that need to be addressed sooner, rather than later (mail and security, to name two). The board is sitting on its hands saying it will defer to staff. If staff doesn't reach a consensus to grant cross root, what does that say about the long-term viability of grex? Will the board allow grex to be hamstrung simply because of staff's inaction? I'm very disappointed by what I would consider to be the board's lack of real leadership.
It is the November meeting that ended at 9:20 and Slynne apparently posted both Oct and Nov right after that.
After reading further in this conference, I'm satisfied that the board moved ahead with this problem. I had missed that this was the October minutes.
(Or, if not me, then anybody....)
cyklone's resp:8 is bang on
I'm thinking it would be good to open up the restriction a little, perhaps anyone using root for any purpose should provide good documentation on changes being done, have some core members approve changes quickely by concensus. Let the board decide a specific ceiling to the gravity of changes made. ie. allow control of root to 3 people board decides root for maintenance only, and allowing trusted access to solve spam, denial of service issue(s). a trusted admin proposes solution to issue (ie. spam). admin posts complete documentation of solution. the same 3 people discuss issue, wait for comments, if solution is not going to break something, and no negative comments, root is given. solution is applied. Just a thought. Is anyone thinking anything like that? What I'm thinking would obviously have to be discussed and changed dramatically.
That's actually not a bad idea.
You have several choices: