[TriLUG] The sys@ list and a Sysadmin Committee

[Matt Frye]

On 9/28/06, Aaron S. Joyner <aaron at joyner.ws> wrote:
> I'd like a bit more explanation into what your goals were?

My initial goal was to "reset" the sys@ list and permissions on the
servers to reduce the variables that exist in the cluster.
Essentially, I am trying to close security holes created by an
effective "grandfather clause" in the understood agreement between
members and their Steering Committee, one of example of which is admin
rights on the cluster.

I'm looking at the integrity of this cluster as I would for any
cluster for which I was paid to be sysadmin.  This includes security.
Removing admin privileges and re-opening the discussion of an
organized sysadmin committee seemed like an effective way to both
engage basic fail safes and encourage interest.

With an established and organized sysadmin committee, we can elect to
be responsible for certain areas and *keep track* of what gets done.
I am taking those responsibilities seriously enough to control access,
but am willing to re-grant access to those who genuinely express
interest in taking part.

> There has been discussion in the past on the trilug list soliciting assistance from those
> who wanted to help out with administration of the cluster...

There have been many discussions soliciting members to help with the
cluster, but none that I felt resulted in any organized action.  I
understand that you are willing and able to help, which is why I sent
out an email requesting that people contact me directly.

> Can you please provide more detail, including who you removed from the
> sys@ list, why they were removed or how you thought this furthered the
> goal of administering the TriLUG cluster?

The list was reduced to the current Steering Committee members
originally subscribed, and Kevin Otte, who has already expressed
interest in the Sysadmin Committee.  Subsequent additions include
Tanner Lovelace and you, Aaron Joyner, by request of Jason Tower.

Re goals, see above.

> Also, as an aside, any action you take which affects another person, by
> it's very definition, can be considered personal.

When I said it "wasn't personal," I meant that no one was being
singled out or removed (or not removed) because of my relationship
with them.

Aaron, I appreciate both your willingness to assist and your daily
doses of humor and trivia.  I hope that this email can be taken for
the thoughtfulness with which it is written.  I do not intend to
engage anyone and I'm not going to be drawn into any email fights.

Have a nice evening,
Matt Frye
-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mattfrye