|
Grex > Coop > #232: Taking root access from non participatants | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 126 responses total. |
glenda
|
|
response 54 of 126:
|
Jul 9 00:07 UTC 2008 |
I don't feel, and never have felt, that ANYONE was entitled to have root
privileges. Only those that need them to do jobs requiring them should
have them.
|
cross
|
|
response 55 of 126:
|
Jul 10 00:15 UTC 2008 |
I don't see much utility in pointing fingers and playing the blame game
on newuser being off, but let's be honest: there wasn't any discussion
in the staff conference. Here's the only mention of the issue:
----
response 555 of 559: Feb 14 19:26 EST 2008
Brought Grex back up after mickeyd crashed the system.
Newuser is off till we get it moderated or the latest version
of OpenBSD installed which fixes this problem.
----
(That's from Steve. Of course, no one [including me] mentioned it
later.)
Further, it's worth noting that the following guidelines were posted by
Jan in April of 2007 on staff decision making:
----
Policies on staff decision making Apr 2 12:55 EDT 2007
Last night we had some discussion of staff decision making procedures.
I've posted a summary of them to coop, but I thought a copy should go
here too.
-------------------
I guess I should have kept notes during the joint staff/board meeting.
I didn't. This is from memory. It was not run as a formal meeting, but
as a discussion to establish some ground procedures for how staff should
work.
Traditionally the Grex board has operated by consensus. We would
regularly meet, discuss things that needed to be done, and reach a
consensus on how an whether they should be done. This worked very well
for many years, but in the last few years has largely broken down.
Staff has actually met very infrequently, and it is hard to come to
consensus if you only discuss things on-line or in email. Furthermore,
many of the staff people who used to be very active (myself and Marcus,
notably) are now much less active, and do not always keep up with the
current issues on Grex. They've become kind of intermittant staff. How
do you form consensus with people who aren't even listening to the
discussion? We also increasingly have staff in remote locations, which
makes meetings to reach consensus more difficult.
Suggestions arising out of this include:
- Staff should resume meeting regularly, probably bi-monthly at least.
The conference phone should be available, so people can call in.
(Staff has not, however, scheduled it's next staff meeting. I
wonder if we should make a habit of meeting after board meetings?)
- The staff conference is to be considered the main place for
discussion of things to do. If a staff member raised a topic in
the staff conference, and got no negative feedback, they are
welcome to feel free to go ahead. They don't necessarily need to
seek input from people who aren't currently actively reading the
staff conference and keeping up on things, though they may, in
some cases, WANT to do so. We understand that staff members are
sometimes busy and have to drop out of the loop for a while, but
things need to be able to go on without them if they are out of
the loop.
- Some things don't actually require a lot of staff consensus.
In an emergency, the staff on hand need to act independently on
their own best judgement. They should obviously make an effort
to inform other staff of what they are doing or what the did.
Some changes to Grex are fairly limited and local. If you are
installing a newer version of 'tcl' that has very limited impact
on the system. The only thing you're doing that a regular user
couldn't do is putting it in a system directory where everyone
can easily access it. Modifying things more central the operating
system that might impact other parts of the system or overall
system security would require more discussion.
- Of course, other changes may require broader discussion in the
coop conference and/or at a board meeting. These are changes that
impact the user interface routinely experienced by many users,
or changes that have policy implications.
----
Note the part on emergencies: it seems that Steve certainly acted within
the guidelines set forth by the board. The problem is that none of us
bothered to follow up (again, myself included).
Grex does have a problem: what to do with too lots of inactive staff who
plain don't have time and a community that has needs. How do we get
back to where we need to be?
Personally, I'd like to see some constructive input on this. Lar's and
Mary's button-pushing isn't getting us anywhere, and neither is the
complaining coming from tsty and Rane. Nor is my inaction. What's the
best course of action?
|
lar
|
|
response 56 of 126:
|
Jul 10 04:35 UTC 2008 |
"Newuser is off till we get it moderated or the latest version
of OpenBSD installed which fixes this problem."
That's actually a somewhat reasonable answer to the big question. Too
bad steve was to lazy to inform the people who actually USE the system.
Maybe he didn't want to answer the inevitable question that would arrive
next and that is WHEN can we expect one of those two things to happen?
In any case I agree with cross that my button pushing accomplishes
little. However, it did get some dialog started. It's too bad that some
people will just sit back in total lethargy unless you troll them
intense enough. And STeve still has yet to weigh in on this.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 57 of 126:
|
Jul 10 06:16 UTC 2008 |
> What's the best course of action?
Instead of insisting on a fix for everything at once, which seems to
be what these discussions always degenerate into, how about if we
focus on identifying one or two modest but achievable goals and make
them the first priority with the hopes that forward progress might
encourage more engagement?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 58 of 126:
|
Jul 10 11:39 UTC 2008 |
> The staff conference is to be considered the main place for discussion
> of things to do.
Is this necessary? What percentage of staff work needs to be hidden from
non-staff users? I would think not very much of it.
|
lar
|
|
response 59 of 126:
|
Jul 10 12:09 UTC 2008 |
I think cross has pretty much blown glenda's claim( by pious fraud) that
that newuser's status was discussed at length in staff. I wouldn't be
too surprised if steve and glenda stormed in here and dumped the whole
baby on cross and resigned
|
slynne
|
|
response 60 of 126:
|
Jul 10 14:00 UTC 2008 |
I wouldnt be surprised either considering the abuse that is being
directed at them.
|
lar
|
|
response 61 of 126:
|
Jul 10 14:29 UTC 2008 |
want some violin music with that whine?
I mean they are SOOOOO abused.
|
slynne
|
|
response 62 of 126:
|
Jul 10 14:52 UTC 2008 |
While I am sure they cant possibly give a rats ass about your opinion,
you have been somewhat nasty in your remarks. And it is clear as far as
you are concerned that they cant win no matter what they do. They can't
stay on because then they are hogging the root and keeping other staff
members from doing anything and if they do resign, they're dumping the
work onto others because of some emotional instability. You are
attacking them personally. FWIW, it shows a lot more about your
character than theirs.
|
lar
|
|
response 63 of 126:
|
Jul 11 00:02 UTC 2008 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 64 of 126:
|
Jul 11 00:05 UTC 2008 |
"You are
attacking them personally. FWIW, it shows a lot more about your
character than theirs. "
Listen to this BS! If someone DARES to criticize them for acting in a
arbitrary manner then it's classified as a "personal attack" and they
call into question my character. It's funny to me that someone who
supports the murder of babies in the womb can question anyones
character.
|
lar
|
|
response 65 of 126:
|
Jul 11 00:11 UTC 2008 |
"While I am sure they cant possibly give a rats ass about your opinion,
you have been somewhat nasty in your remarks."
That's the problem, he doesn't care about ANYONE's opinion and that's
why he acts in such a prima dona manner.
|
slynne
|
|
response 66 of 126:
|
Jul 11 00:29 UTC 2008 |
Bringing my views about people's sovereignty over their own bodies into
this discussion is just another example of the low blows you're making
in this item. Again, something that says more about your character than
any one else's. And fwiw, suggesting that someone is acting like a prima
donna is more of a personal attack then merely stating that you believe
someone is acting in an arbitrary manner. Do you really not understand
how insulting you are being? Do you actually expect to be taken
seriously by anyone?
|
glenda
|
|
response 67 of 126:
|
Jul 11 02:08 UTC 2008 |
I wish that you would quit lumping me in with your tirades against
STeve. I am his wife, not his clone. I have never acted in an arbitrary
manner in any staff capacity on Grex, unless you count my going over and
rebooting it without checking in with anyone when I notice it is down
and I am free to get there. I am uncomfortable with doing anything else
on the system alone, I am not experienced enough. I am, however, very
good at doing things under the direction of others when I am the only
one physically available when something needs to be done NOW. I can be
talked through almost any technical problem and am using this as a
further learning tool as the hands on I don't get from the computer
science program at Eastern.
For you information, you can't take root away from me. I don't even
know the current root password. I have to call another staff member to
get it when I need to use it, I just don't use it often enough to keep
it in my active memory. What have I ever done to you or Grex for you to
be so up in my face against me?
|
tsty
|
|
response 68 of 126:
|
Jul 11 03:26 UTC 2008 |
a whiel back ... and would be consistent with today ... both STeve *and*
glenda (and i) battled vandals on the typical as-needed basis.
suggesting that EITHER ought to have root access pulled (whether or
not it applies) is chin-droppingly stupifying in its scope - or lack
of scope.
i might need some defending (not really, but tha;s another story) but
STeve, mcnally, jep, glenda, remmers, mdw, janc, (even popcorn, mostly) or
other founders+ need none. i've probably missed a couple other ppl in
whom i have implicit trust regardless of temptation. yeh, i missed cross,
sorry. oh, scott is included (wehre is scott when you need him?) as well.
.. umm, srw, i, gelinas and bhoward (while i;'m remembering the GoodGuys (tm).
and , umm, whow was it that wnet to carnagie - root/board at 16?
re 43 ... if i had maintained my skill level i would be glad to assist
again. but i havne't so i can;t - thank you, regardless.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 69 of 126:
|
Jul 11 04:42 UTC 2008 |
#68 could be read to imply that I was a grex founder. I was active on
the system fairly early in its history, but I was not one of the founding
group.
|
cross
|
|
response 70 of 126:
|
Jul 11 05:20 UTC 2008 |
You know, I've had my fair share of *technical* disagreements with
Steve, and I've questioned and, I think, been questioned on *technical*
grounds with him, but honestly, I've never had anything personal against
the guy (or against Glenda) or, for that matter, anyone else on staff
(yes yes, I realize some would disagree with that; all I can say is that
you probably misinterpreted my comments about something or another).
Anyway, the point is, some of this is veering away from legitimate
questioning of the status of the system and moving toward just bashing
on the guy, which isn't productive. From my perspective, Steve seems
like a really nice guy who I'd enjoy sitting down and having a technical
conversation with. He seems like a devoted family man, and I have a lot
of respect for that (same goes for Glenda, though I guess she's a family
woman, not a family man).
Lest this smack of hagiography, none of this is relevant to the running
of Grex, and as everyone knows, Steve and I differ about the best
approach to these. I suppose my point is, let's not get things
confused. Someone's views on abortion, religion, etc, are totally
irrelevant. What *is* relevant is our direction as a system, where we
want to go, what we want to do, etc.
To that end, I agree with McNally's idea about finding some small,
attainable projects, and seeing them through to completion. What can we
do, though? Any ideas?
|
lar
|
|
response 71 of 126:
|
Jul 11 06:03 UTC 2008 |
"Bringing my views about people's sovereignty over their own bodies into
this discussion is just another example of the low blows you're making
in this item."
You're the one that gets making desparing remarks about another's
character. To criticize someone for making a decision you don't agree
with Isn't a low blow. However, to try to spin the battle into a
question of character is a way to weasel away from the salient issue.
I have just as much to call into question your disgusting position of
murdering babies as you do to question my tactics. I actually don't care
what you think of my opinion. However, I don't think I have swung any
low blows here. Not like YOU are trying to do. Now If I said something
like "slynne, if your opinion carried as much weight as that fat ass of
yours, then you could rule the world", then THAT would be a low blow.
However,I'm not saying that.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 72 of 126:
|
Jul 11 06:03 UTC 2008 |
I think at this point the thing most likely to improve the
recoverability of the system in the event of an outage is finding
a remote console solution. I don't have any experience with them,
but it seems like there are many IP-based KVM solutions. Could
we set something like that up so that the next time there's a
crisis the recovery of the system doesn't depend on the Andres or
the few other local-to-Ann-Arbor volunteers with access?
|
lar
|
|
response 73 of 126:
|
Jul 11 06:13 UTC 2008 |
"What have I ever done to you or Grex for you to
be so up in my face against me?"
Who is "against" you? If you don't have root access then you are
excluded from the topic. I don't have an issue with you being told the
root password and being walked through some issues nor do I have
aproblem with you rebooting the system without permission. That;s
laughable and it (coupled with slynne's remarks about "low blows") is a
misrepresentation of my position. I will restate it for clarification: I
have an issue with someone who acts arbitrarily and without
accountability to the community.
Now,you made a statement that led me to believe that this issue had been
discussed at length in staff.cf. cross then posted what was actually
said. It showed that the statement you made was misleading hence the
label "pious fraud". The label was directed at your statement.
|
glenda
|
|
response 74 of 126:
|
Jul 11 07:15 UTC 2008 |
I never said "discussed at length", I said that it was discussed.
How am I not to believe that you are against me when you mention me by
name every time you go into a tirade against STeve, especially since you
are accusing me of doing the same things you say he is doing without
knowing what my exact position on staff was. You just assumed that
because I am related to him that I am just as bad as him in your eyes.
I find that to be insulting. If you knew us, you would find that we
have a lot of differences of opinion on a lot of things, Grex among
them. In fact, STeve is one of the reasons that I have stayed around.
If left to my own devices, I would have said the hell with it due to the
actions of people like Chad, hera, jmpv (or whatever his login is), and
you. I don't need this type of aggravation with everything else going
on in my life right now. I stay because STeve says it is worth it in
the long run and because of the friends that I have found here. I
usually ignore jerks like you, and will now go back to doing so.
|
lar
|
|
response 75 of 126:
|
Jul 11 08:39 UTC 2008 |
"I never said "discussed at length", I said that it was discussed."
You attempted to make me believe the whole issue was discussed in staff
and that it was a decision that you had agreed to. That's the innuendo
expressed in that pious fraud of a statement. You can out whining like a
spanked puppy with a persecution complex when cross posted what was
actually posted there. You statement was a thinly veiled attempt at
deception. Don't try to play the sympathy card when you are called out
on it.
|
cross
|
|
response 76 of 126:
|
Jul 11 13:23 UTC 2008 |
resp:72 I agree that that's a pretty obvious thing. Personally, I think
we need to upgrade to a new machine with such functionality just built
in. It would probably be pretty easy, but we need to spec something out
and just buy it.
The board discussed doing that, and make some steps toward actually
doing it, but then got sidetracked (that was actually my fault: the task
was mine, and I got so busy that it never happened).
I will look again.
An issue: when Grex got onto its present hardware, we sort of did it by
buying the cheapest stuff we could. In retrospect, that was a bad idea,
and a continued symptom of our past "cheapness." That is, our limited
budget had forced us to be bottom feeders when it came to hardware. It
further forced us to be clever when it came to stringing things together
into a usable system. That was all well and good in and around the
90's, not so much later, but we got used to it and by the time we had
actual money, we still thought about things in the old way. Some of the
predictions about the unreliability of PC hardware that we'd fought off
came true, but largely they were self-fulfilling prophecies that we
subjected ourselves to, not functions of the hardware.
Well, that was then. This incarnation of Grex has been running since
late 2003 or thereabouts, and it's really time to upgrade to new
hardware. In doing that, let's *not* nickle and dime ourselves into
unreliability; we have the money, let's get some decent hardware and go
from there.
|
slynne
|
|
response 77 of 126:
|
Jul 11 14:47 UTC 2008 |
resp:72 I like the idea of IP based KVM for grex but most of the devices
I found after a quick google search seemed pretty expensive.
I like the idea of new hardware but I think that qualifies as a big
project.
|
scholar
|
|
response 78 of 126:
|
Jul 11 15:22 UTC 2008 |
Re. 74: Glenda, someone making a terse comment is not a discussion by any
definition.
It's not clear to me exactly how touching it is that you're trying to convince
us you have no special quarter for your own husband.
However, it is quite clear that you used what you believed to be your
privileged access to the staff conference to mislead Grex's membership into
thinking Steve's drastic action may have been well considered, robustly
discussed, or possibly even something that had gained consensus among staff.
It's also clear that, now that your deception has been plainly exposed, you're
attempting to avoid responsibility by refusing to talk about it.
Volunteer or no, using a position of authority to lie to the members of a
corporation and indeed the members of what's purpoted to be an open community
is simply unacceptable.
|