🚀 go-pugleaf

On 10 Jun 91 16:12:28 GMT, jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ace Stewart) said:

jstewart> Do sysadmins add and delete the accounts? Do they handle
jstewart> diskspace requests, do they tell them they did "a bad thing"
jstewart> when they tried to 'su root' 25 times in a row? I believe that
jstewart> sysadmins _do_ have some authority over the users on that
jstewart> system, and now we have to draw an infamous line of where that
jstewart> authority stops and starts.

By the same token, the guy in the company stationery store will or will
not give you pencils and paper.

To me authority means "supervisor" or "manager", not "sysadmin".
Sysadmins are there to make the system work, to provide a service, not
to manage humans. They are technical NCOs, not officers.

jstewart> How do you control people who attack others on a listserv for
jstewart> instance? It is a discussionary medium, and many people can be
jstewart> offended in one piece of mail.

That is the problem of the offendor. And the problem of the offended
party. As soon as you, the provider of the service, get involved, you
have to take issue with the contents of the offensive message. This
requires judgement and legitimate authority. A sysadmin should never get
embroiled in these things.

jstewart> Is it right for those people to be told "we can't do
jstewart> anything"... which comes close to advocating that attack?

Advocating by omission? Are you sure? Personal responsibility no longer
exists?

jstewart> Or, alternatively, do we "speak" to the user and "suggest"
jstewart> that perhaps he could do better? Is there any harm in that as
jstewart> opposed to passing the complaint-ant to "someone in charge?"

Yes, that you are essentially blackmailing the user. Just like the
stationery guy that does not like you and tells you there no more
pencils when the store is full just because he does not like you. Petty
harassment, by people who are in a position of "power". Your duty is to
cooperate with users, whether you think they are "bad" or "good", under
the directives of people responsible for human management. These must
judge, where appropriate, whether behaviour is "good" or "bad", and give
you the relative directives. Otherwise every little petty NCO in every
type of organization can hold everybody else at ransom.

jstewart> And, in all that, we're not censoring until a person
jstewart> force-ably stops outgoing mail, edits it, etc. It is just a
jstewart> suggestion. I ask hoping for constructive responses... is this
jstewart> a solution?

The solution is to know who is in charge and have good human
relationships. Not to take into one's hands petty "authority". You may
reply that if proper behaviour does not work or is otherwise
inappropriate, and there is no hope to rectify the situation, then
expediency wins. Yes, that's true. But then the organization has poor
managers.
--
Piercarlo Grandi                   | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk