🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <x5dh_p-@rpi.edu> rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) writes:

   But, I'm curious about the general opinon of people here in this group.
   Is this going to be a place for continuous petty spouting of rules and 
   regulations and rebuttals? ... Is there a charter somewhere?

This is from news.announce.newgroups where all the new USENET
groups are announced:

"The charter of the group is:

The purpose of comp.admin.policy is to provide a forum for the
discussion of site administration policy, including but certainly not
limited to:

	- email privacy (the administration and implementation of it)
	- account contracts .. what should be in them?
	- acceptable use policy for networks, schools, companies, etc
	- what constitutes abuse of a user's account
	- policy on breakings, attempted breakings, etc
	- the ethics and issues involved in the restriction/freedom
	  of accounts
	- the chain of command..who does what at your site?"

So, it seems we are "stuck" with rules and regulations - that and
related issues is what the group was suggested, voted and created
for.  Personally, I find it very interesting, as I am responsible
for enforcing the acceptable use rules at my university as part
of my work. The discussion so far has been very enlightening and
I think we have some work to do in defining with what action
different types of offences should be responded to. In our rules
this is a clearly fuzzy area.

Paivi

--
@ Paivi Hyvarinen, systems analyst (part time)   @ Paivi.Hyvarinen@hut.fi    @
@ User Services Section                          @                           @
@ Computing Centre, Helsinki Univ. of Technology @ Voice: 358 + 0 - 451 4316 @
@ Otakaari 1 M, SF-02150 Espoo, Finland          @ Reception: U133 Thu 10-12 @