|
Grex > Coop12 > #200: Root on New Machine for Future Staffers | |
|
| Author |
Message |
janc
|
|
Root on New Machine for Future Staffers
| 
Jul 11 16:17 UTC 2003 |
Grex staff is going to propose that three new
people be added to Grex staff. These are:
Kip DeGraaf (kip)
Joe Gelinas (gelinas)
Dan Cross (cross)
Board approval is needed before they can actually
be put on staff.
To facilitate development of the next grex, it
would be useful to give these people the ability to
help now, instead of a few weeks from now. To do
this, I'd like to propose that they be given root
status now on the new machine. Root status on the
main machine would not be given until they are
fully approved by the board.
To make certain that everyone is clear on what is
being done, would the Board use this item to
approve granting these people root access to the
new grex machine?
|
| 22 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 1 of 22:
|
Jul 11 16:18 UTC 2003 |
I had started a discussion on this in email. Eric and Mary had approved
the idea. Joe, of course, abstained, but suggested that I post an item
on the subject in Coop. I haven't had responses from other board members.
|
flem
|
|
response 2 of 22:
|
Jul 11 17:04 UTC 2003 |
Sorry, meant to respond earlier. This seems fine to me.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 3 of 22:
|
Jul 11 19:16 UTC 2003 |
Sounds fine to me.
|
aruba
|
|
response 4 of 22:
|
Jul 11 20:26 UTC 2003 |
It sounds fine to me to give those three root access on the NextGrex.
|
mary
|
|
response 5 of 22:
|
Jul 11 21:24 UTC 2003 |
Yes, again. And thanks for all the work you three are going
to be doing. ;-)
|
twenex
|
|
response 6 of 22:
|
Jul 12 05:13 UTC 2003 |
Congratulations lads.
|
janc
|
|
response 7 of 22:
|
Jul 13 04:20 UTC 2003 |
I've forgotten who is on board. I think we've got like 4 postive votes.
Is that enough?
|
other
|
|
response 8 of 22:
|
Jul 13 05:03 UTC 2003 |
!board
|
aruba
|
|
response 9 of 22:
|
Jul 13 05:24 UTC 2003 |
Yes, that's 4 board members, which is a majority. So go ahead and give root
on the new machine to those three.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 10 of 22:
|
Jul 14 15:13 UTC 2003 |
To make things clearer to the rest of us:
Board Member Vote
mary Yes
other Yes
flem Yes
aruba Yes
gelinas Abstain
mooncat -
mdw -
|
mooncat
|
|
response 11 of 22:
|
Jul 14 16:46 UTC 2003 |
I say yes too.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 12 of 22:
|
Jul 14 17:06 UTC 2003 |
How come mdw hasn't voted?
|
carson
|
|
response 13 of 22:
|
Jul 14 17:54 UTC 2003 |
(I believe he's away on vacation/assignment.)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 14 of 22:
|
Jul 14 19:00 UTC 2003 |
Aaah, ok
|
janc
|
|
response 15 of 22:
|
Jul 16 03:06 UTC 2003 |
He's back from vacation, but buried under a huge workload and dealing with
some other issues too.
|
janc
|
|
response 16 of 22:
|
Jul 16 03:08 UTC 2003 |
For what it's worth, I do recall him making some vaguely positive comments
about something like this idea at the last staff meeting. I wouldn't go so
far as counting it as a vote, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't have strong
objections.
|
sabre
|
|
response 17 of 22:
|
Jul 16 14:24 UTC 2003 |
I would like to nominate myself as grex's new admin.
I will need root access to nextgrex as well as the current system.
What say ye?
|
twenex
|
|
response 18 of 22:
|
Jul 16 14:39 UTC 2003 |
I say,
if braincell < 1
{
do_not_appoint(as_admin)
}
|
dcat
|
|
response 19 of 22:
|
Jul 17 03:28 UTC 2003 |
do_not_appoint(as_admin) unless defined brain[1];
i [heart] perl :)
|
ea
|
|
response 20 of 22:
|
Jul 17 03:47 UTC 2003 |
(if (< 1 braincell)
(lambda
(not appoint)))
(I think my scheme syntax is a bit off ... it's been a while since I had
to use it)
|
cross
|
|
response 21 of 22:
|
Jul 17 04:14 UTC 2003 |
Hmm. The scheme looks all right, but semantically it's a little weird.
Why not just return a boolean value instead of a closure?
|
twenex
|
|
response 22 of 22:
|
Jul 19 03:26 UTC 2003 |
I can't believe someone is having a serious discussion about this routine.
That's so brill!
|