|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 106 responses total. |
omni
|
|
response 37 of 106:
| 
Jan 28 19:34 UTC 1997 |
I would like to add that I would consider this a great learning opportunity,
and one that might not present itself for some time to come.
|
tsty
|
|
response 38 of 106:
|
Jan 30 06:55 UTC 1997 |
any reliance on favorable/unfavorable politics doesn't seem apropos
except outside of grex i would think.
|
valerie
|
|
response 39 of 106:
|
Jan 31 15:14 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 40 of 106:
|
Jan 31 16:41 UTC 1997 |
Guess it's not a factor, then.
|
richard
|
|
response 41 of 106:
|
Jan 31 18:30 UTC 1997 |
#39...Valerie is not being truthful with you Russ. If she gets her way
with item #2 in the unregistered reading proposal, the Cfadmin will be
in the position of monitoring *all* the fair witnesses of all the confs
to make sure noone is linking items from closed confs. And if they are,
you have to immediately rescind their fw abilities and catch hell from
them *and* likely from members of that conf, whose conference setup you
would be interfering with. Valerie wants the staff, and therefore
logically the cfadmin, to act as governors, to interfere with
conferences and enforce political mandates.
|
omni
|
|
response 42 of 106:
|
Jan 31 19:50 UTC 1997 |
I think you're wrong, Richard. I have known Valerie a lot longer than you
have and I have never known her to harbor an ulterior motive.
IF a fw makes a mistake, the appropriate action would be to correct the
mistake and then educate the offender. I think that would be what Valerie
would do.
I would hope that the fw would already know that you don't link from
closed confs in the first place. I think you owe Valerie an apology.
|
dpc
|
|
response 43 of 106:
|
Jan 31 21:32 UTC 1997 |
Well, omni, disregarding Richard's innuendoes, it *is* true that
under #2 of Valerie's proposed policy, the staff (logically cfadm)
would have a policing role including removal of fair witness status.
This policy change *will* make cfadm "political" in the sense
of "exercising power". Another good reason to vote against the
policy.
|
dang
|
|
response 44 of 106:
|
Jan 31 22:25 UTC 1997 |
I recall she said "staff." Cfadm need not be staff.
|
richard
|
|
response 45 of 106:
|
Jan 31 23:27 UTC 1997 |
Omni, I am not making any personal attacks. It is not what Valerie would do
(Im sure she'd try to be nice about it) but what the precedent sets
in...mandating staf acting as police for the conferences. How many times have
I heard that staf are supposed to have nothing to do with conferences, that
staff are volunteers to maintain the hardware. I think her proposal
redefines what staff responsibilities are and sets a bad p[recedent.
The proposal itself isnt worth this kind of bureacracy.
|
russ
|
|
response 46 of 106:
|
Feb 1 01:27 UTC 1997 |
Detecting links out of closed confs should be doable via scripts.
It shouldn't need very much human intervention until then. If
the policy is decided elsewhere and cfadm is only executing it, I
don't see what the political issue is; policement aren't policymakers.
|
snafu
|
|
response 47 of 106:
|
Feb 1 01:41 UTC 1997 |
Very true...
|
russ
|
|
response 48 of 106:
|
Feb 1 02:37 UTC 1997 |
However, I'd need to see a list of these policy items relevant to
the cfadm role before I even think of being "conference cop". Are
they written anywhere?
|
omni
|
|
response 49 of 106:
|
Feb 1 04:34 UTC 1997 |
I beg to differ, dang. Cfadm should be staff if he/she would have access
to all conferences. If cfadm need not be staff, then why does staff have to
recommend to the board who to appoint? Shouldn't this be a board only
decision?
So are we going to go the route of "make a mistake and resign"? or
or are we more inclined to educate, then if it happens again remove the f-w?
I am more inclined to use the least amount of muscle because good f-w's
are really hard to find.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 50 of 106:
|
Feb 1 04:55 UTC 1997 |
I'm under the impresion that a cfadm could be on the staff in an
organizational sense although the cfadm need not have root password, staff
mail, pumpkin keys, etc.
|
davel
|
|
response 51 of 106:
|
Feb 1 13:37 UTC 1997 |
Right, except for one small cfadm job: when a conference is deleted (rare
occasion), all participation files for that conference need to be nuked as
well. That takes root. Someday someone will write a suid-root perl program
or something to take care of it, maybe - shouldn't be too hard to make that
reasonably bulletproof.
|
remmers
|
|
response 52 of 106:
|
Feb 1 14:34 UTC 1997 |
Re #48: There's hasn't been much in the way of "policy items
relevant to the cfadm role". The idea has always been that cfadm
is a facilitator, helping fw's get conferences set up, doing
restarts on request, etc., and otherwise letting conferences run
themselves. As a cfadm I have *NEVER* thought of myself as a
"conference cop" and don't want to.
If we do start making rules and regs for conferences, with cfadm
as "enforcer", I think what we'd start attracting people to the
position who enjoy playing bureaucrat, playing policeman, riding
shotgun, etc. I would not like to see that happen to Grex.
|
dpc
|
|
response 53 of 106:
|
Feb 1 17:43 UTC 1997 |
Cfadm is a "superuser" and thus IMO is "staff", even though cfadm
doesn't have root. I thought staff was anyone who had any kind
of superpowers.
Cfadm is shorthand for "conference administrator." Cfadm
already has the tools for adding/deleting fws and links, and I
believe would be the logical person to be the "enforcer" under
Valerie's proposal. If Grex wants to have this kind of active
conference administration, then we will need to have cfadms who
are willing to be cops.
|
russ
|
|
response 54 of 106:
|
Feb 1 19:29 UTC 1997 |
Is the "rule" about no linkage out of closed conferences just a
proposal? This confusion is another reason to write things down,
and maybe have some sort of history showing how things have been
handled previously; a sort of "common practices" log.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 55 of 106:
|
Feb 2 00:46 UTC 1997 |
There are no closed conferences on Grex, thus no rule albout linking.
*IF* members vote to "close" some conferences to unregistered users coming
in through the web, then there probably will be some "closed" (to unregistered
web readers) conferences. But the conferences will still be open to
"observers" who telnet or dial in.
|
dang
|
|
response 56 of 106:
|
Feb 2 02:24 UTC 1997 |
Sorry, by staff I meant root, keys, and staff mailing list, as those were the
three levels of "staff" as the board voted on them that I knew of. You are
right in that cfadm does have special privilages, and so can be considered
part of staff. I should have said root.
|
janc
|
|
response 57 of 106:
|
Feb 2 07:20 UTC 1997 |
There are various shades of staffness. It's not obvious to me that enforcing
this proposal would be cfadm's job.
Re #51: Years ago, I wrote a "killpart" program that allowed cfadm on M-Net
to kill all user's participation files for a conference. It would be painless
to install here if we needed it. (I have no idea if it is still being used
on M-Net.)
|
valerie
|
|
response 58 of 106:
|
Feb 2 07:43 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 59 of 106:
|
Feb 2 10:17 UTC 1997 |
ummm, i think there are some 'restricted access' conferences on grex.
correct me if that's incorrect (dont include staff.cf).
|
davel
|
|
response 60 of 106:
|
Feb 2 12:12 UTC 1997 |
Other than the staff conference, there are *no* restricted-access conferences
on Grex. This has been discussed at length in the past.
|
dpc
|
|
response 61 of 106:
|
Feb 2 19:52 UTC 1997 |
The problem with the present proposal in #27 is that it requires
a staff person (logically cfadm) to decide on mental states such
as deliberateness, maliciousness, and intentionalness. Well, that's
at least one problem with it.
|
