|
Grex > Coop12 > #194: Motion to encourage staff delegation of responsibility | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 32 of 120:
| 
Jun 5 02:59 UTC 2003 |
I thought partyadm was a group and all necessary privileges were part and
parcel of group membership, or at least came automatically with it.
|
carson
|
|
response 33 of 120:
|
Jun 5 03:04 UTC 2003 |
re #30: (why pick just one? there's "five" now!)
|
other
|
|
response 34 of 120:
|
Jun 5 03:15 UTC 2003 |
You know... if there are five partyadms and requests are going unresponded
to, then what possible harm could there be in having nine partyadms if
four additional people have volunteered and seem by all reasonable account
to be responsible people?
And just so I'm sure I understand the process, would someone please tell
me just exactly what it takes to actually provide adm privileges to a user
for party, lynx, cf, &c.? I'm of the impression that in most cases it is
simply a matter of running a command which adds the user to the specified
admin group -- a process which I estimate takes less than a minute at the
extreme, possibly including the time it takes to log in as root, if
necessary.
|
cross
|
|
response 35 of 120:
|
Jun 5 03:36 UTC 2003 |
Aw, for crying out loud, people, just add other to the damn group. Who
would possibly object to that?
|
spooked
|
|
response 36 of 120:
|
Jun 5 08:07 UTC 2003 |
I'm about to add other, gelinas, and carson to partyadm.
Now get to work :)
|
spooked
|
|
response 37 of 120:
|
Jun 5 08:24 UTC 2003 |
I've added other,gelinas,carson to group membership of partyadm in
/etc/group so you should be able to read/write/execute the appropriate
files bestowed upon the partyadm role. I'm not sure where there is good
documentation on what you need to do - I think other already has some.
A good person to ask about partyadm stuff is valerie. Remember, as
scott pointed out there isn't much demand for party admin stuff these
days so don't expect to be too busy - but, if requests do come up, at
least we will have some active partyadm's again.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 38 of 120:
|
Jun 5 12:50 UTC 2003 |
Thank you, Sir. Now if some kind soul would add us to the partyadm mail
group, things should be just peachy.
|
janc
|
|
response 39 of 120:
|
Jun 5 13:21 UTC 2003 |
Thanks Mic.
|
janc
|
|
response 40 of 120:
|
Jun 5 13:29 UTC 2003 |
I don't know if there is any partyadm documentation as such. Reading 'man
party' would likely be a good starting point.
|
other
|
|
response 41 of 120:
|
Jun 5 14:11 UTC 2003 |
There is an item in the staff conference specifically for partyadm
information.
Of course, you have to be permitted to read the staff conference to access
it...
Thanks Mic.
|
spooked
|
|
response 42 of 120:
|
Jun 6 01:20 UTC 2003 |
I updated /etc/aliases so that the new partyadm trio are also on the
partyadm mail.
One or more of you, please let me know you got my test mail to that
address.
|
carson
|
|
response 43 of 120:
|
Jun 6 07:46 UTC 2003 |
(snow should probably be removed from the partyadm mail alias until she
gets around to cleaning out her mailbox...)
|
spooked
|
|
response 44 of 120:
|
Jun 6 08:10 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, I noticed that, too.
I also heard back from Valerie who is reluctant to be on the list.
So, I'm going to remove snow and valerie from the list until I hear
otherwise from them.
|
jlamb
|
|
response 45 of 120:
|
Jun 9 04:06 UTC 2003 |
I would Gladly Volunteer To help Grex, now that School is out of the
way, and i have oodles of free time.
|
naftee
|
|
response 46 of 120:
|
Jun 11 03:17 UTC 2003 |
I support jlamb as a new party admin.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 47 of 120:
|
Jun 11 18:10 UTC 2003 |
Me too.
|
other
|
|
response 48 of 120:
|
Jun 19 04:59 UTC 2003 |
We seem to have forgotten to commence voting. Mr. Remmers, sir. If you
please...
|
remmers
|
|
response 49 of 120:
|
Jun 19 14:46 UTC 2003 |
Nope, didn't forget. You didn't do the "At the end of two weeks, the
author may then submit a final version for a vote by the membership"
step to confirm that you wanted to bring this to a vote, as specified
in Article 5a of the bylaws. The author always has the option of
deciding whether or not to bring a proposal to a vote at the end of
the discussion period; hence that requirement.
Am I to assume that you want this voted on? If so, what is the final
wording? The same as give in response #0?
|
other
|
|
response 50 of 120:
|
Jun 19 14:54 UTC 2003 |
Interesting point. The use of the word "may" suggests that this step is
not mandatory, which implies that the default is to begin voting on the
proposal in the form most recently posted and accepted by the proposer.
Of course, if in doubt, it seems to me that the voteadm would take the
additional step of asking for verification of the wording just prior to
the two-week deadline.
Perhaps this wording should be clarified.
The wording in #0 is as I'd like it, and I thank those who participated
in this item for their thoughts and perspectives on the issue.
|
mary
|
|
response 51 of 120:
|
Jun 19 15:52 UTC 2003 |
I know you mean well here, Eric, but I was hoping this
wouldn't come to a vote. I mean, the proposal really
doesn't ask for any new policies or procedures. If it
passes nothing changes. If it fails, nothing changes.
At least that's my take on it.
But it really isn't going to harm anything by calling for
a vote. I just don't see it changing anything.
|
flem
|
|
response 52 of 120:
|
Jun 19 16:10 UTC 2003 |
I hope it doesn't come to a vote, either, but I can't agree that if it did
pass, nothing would change. The (only, I believe) effect it would have would
be to make the body of rules that run grex that much longer and more
confusing. I believe that rules should be as concise and clear as possible.
I think this proposal harms that goal, without providing any beneficial change
to improve Grex. I'll vote against it if I have to, but I hope I don't have
to.
|
other
|
|
response 53 of 120:
|
Jun 20 05:17 UTC 2003 |
I think it is an extremely clear statement of policy which serves the
precise purpose of both promoting and eliminating uncertainty about the
proper delegation of administrative responsibilities. It does not demand
any actions which cannot be easily remedied if they turn out to be
erroneous.
I consider it a first step in the process of instituting cultural change
and opening up the administration of Grex to a larger pool of qualified
candidates. By encouraging the delegation of responsibility, we create
more opportunities for interested people to begin to exhibit the
inclinations and skills necessary to convince existing staff to
comfortably expand their ranks.
If we don't give more people the opportunity to prove themselves adequate
and appropriate for consideration as potential root staff, then we limit
our ability both to deal with current operational concerns in a timely
manner, and to grow as a system and as a community.
I don't understand why you (flem) would vote against it, or why you
(mary) think it changes nothing. Frankly, if ALL it does is clarify an
existing policy without adding anything to it, then I think it is worth
passing. I think it is more than that.
|
carson
|
|
response 54 of 120:
|
Jun 20 14:41 UTC 2003 |
(I personally don't think it clarifies anything, but rather reiterates
previously forgotten policy. whether it passes or not, it's already
accomplished its goal.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 55 of 120:
|
Jun 20 14:52 UTC 2003 |
I'll set up a vote on this today or tomorrow.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 56 of 120:
|
Jun 20 16:40 UTC 2003 |
I'm inclined to vote in favor of this proposal simply because of the phrase
"expressly permitted and encouraged." I noted Jan's comments on why he
didn't want to exercise his abilities and think his reasons valid for him.
That they are valid for him does not excuse the reluctance of the rest
of the staff. It seems obvious that staff does need encouragement
(of both kinds: appreciation of a job well done, and solicitation of
continued efforts).
I hope that this referendum will help provide some of that encouragement.
|