response 10 of 61:

Sep 27 20:47 UTC 2006

I was not treated perfectly, but the world is not a perfect place (and I 
am far from perfect).  

STeve: if you can apologise, it would be appreciated - I believe your 
intentions were not sinister, but I did not appreciate your rashness 
(and, more so, lack of communication since the episode).  

Nevetheless, I'm not going to resign either way.  We all make mistakes, 
and can learn from them.  At the end of the day, if we care about Grex we 
will cooperate better as a team - this includes following procedure, 
encouraging initiative (within reasonable parameters), and interacting 
more civally and respectfully.

response 12 of 61:

Sep 27 22:09 UTC 2006

Regarding #5; The membership explicitly requested that Steve pulling Mic's
access be on the agenda.  I'm very disappointed that it wasn't really
addressed, paricularly since it wasn't immediately restored.

If Steve truly felt that grex was in danger, then he surely did the right
thing in the moment.  But then it surely became clear that the immediate
cause of the incident was a communication breakdown and a difference of
policy interpretation and not any malicious intent.  It is clear Mic
wouldn't have done the same thing again.  Now, the board has met and agreed
on an interpretation of the policy which clearly implies that both Mic and
myself were wrong with our interpretations.  (I do wish they'd update the
language a bit to be more explicit, but hey, you can't win 'em all.)  But no
where in this fiasco has *anyone* thought that anyone else was acting
maliciously, trying to hurt the system, or doing *anything* permanently
damaging.  Well, maybe that was Steve's initial reaction, but I hope he
quickly came to see that that wasn't the case.  Why, then, the delay?  This
is what has come to concern me more than anything else at this point.  And
actually, it's not even really about this episode: it's about the lack of a
generic policy around this matter.  If someone gets confused and sees
someone installing a new version of emacs, are they going to cut off their
access until the next board meeting?  I certainly hope not!

If Mic felt that Steve was purposely damaging the system, then yes, he'd be
justified in yanking his access.  If after the evidence was presented it was
clear that Mic had been wrong, then surely Steve's access should be
restored.  Any delay in that would be an insult.

I don't believe a hierarchy is necessary, and I certainly don't believe one
is desirable.  A liason position along the lines of that posed by eprom and
nharmon might not be a bad idea, but is somewhat different.  Certainly, a
policy along the lines of what Eric was proposing cannot but be a good
thing.

Regarding #6; I have plenty of respect and admiration for Steve.  I thought
I'd made that clear since this incident happened.  I just think he was
wrong.  It's nothig personal.  I do think Todd is right that it's a bit of a
cop-out not to discuss Steve's actions.

Besides, I'd say this episode is almost over.  But I do feel strongly that
the issue of when and under what circumstances staff can revoke the access
of other staff needs to be addressed.

Regarding #9; I agree.

Regarding #10; You are a bigger man than I.  I quit staff because I felt
insulted by a board member who makes little bones about having a personal
dislike for me.

response 14 of 61:

Sep 28 04:56 UTC 2006

Mic's access to root will be restored momentarily.

Dan: The delay in responding was because the board meeting was scheduled for
Tuesday, adn it was a lot easier to sort out what to do then.  So we waited
a couple of days until the meeting.

response 16 of 61:

Sep 28 08:50 UTC 2006

Mic wasn't aware of that..... but, Mic's not focusing on the rather poor 
handling of that historical episode.

response 18 of 61:

Sep 28 13:08 UTC 2006

Root the ones you love.

response 20 of 61:

Sep 28 18:44 UTC 2006

Root wart

response 22 of 61:

Sep 29 00:18 UTC 2006

A round of root beer for everyone!

response 24 of 61:

Oct 6 20:52 UTC 2006

re resp:12:
Dan said:

---
Regarding #5; The membership explicitly requested that Steve pulling Mic's
access be on the agenda.  I'm very disappointed that it wasn't really
addressed, paricularly since it wasn't immediately restored.
---

Ahem.  "The membership" speaks only through elections or user
initiatives.  Say "a member explicitly requested..." or "a couple of
members requested..." and that statement becomes accurate.  Otherwise
you have no right to speak for "the membership".  The Board does that.

response 26 of 61:

Oct 6 22:31 UTC 2006

Yeah, #24 should be mandatory reading for all. It pretty much sums up many
of grex's problems in ways probably not intended.

response 28 of 61:

Oct 7 00:11 UTC 2006

Semantics.  It only spins the conversation away from the Board's inaction
toward resolving a rogue staff.

response 30 of 61:

Oct 7 02:28 UTC 2006

yeah ; "readership" is probably the most accurate.

response 32 of 61:

Oct 7 03:48 UTC 2006

Re #28: Exactly!