Policy-Discussion

[Dieter Hennig <dieter.hennig AT id.ethz.ch>]

Dear Ian,

thank you for fast answer,

Ian G schrieb am 23.03.2010 23:36:
>> Is somewhere to find a list, who is who? And exist a team, which is
>> empty?
> 
> 
> Each team leader would be responsible for that I guess.  We haven't
> formalised it to that extent, we've been concentrating on building the
> teams.  Support Team Leader keeps a list on wiki;  Access Engineers and
> Systems Administrators are listed in the old Oophaga MoU.

The support team is not so important (keep in mind, that I am a part of
ETH  support team  ;-) ).

>> What would happen, if we would have a very specific policy, but no
>> people in the groups? If the Application Engineer group would have no
>> members, than there is no software update, right?
> 
> If there is no Application Engineer in the team then the Critical
> Systems Administrators cannot get access.

And no change, right? If there would be a mistake (very, very small of
course) in our construction, how would be eliminate that?

We  (ETH) are here not doing this difference between system
administrators, software support engineers and applications engineers.
We would assume, that the last can substitute the other ones.

If not, then we are going (we are he and me) into brainstorming. Until
today, this loosely life was not ending in a disaster. Of course, we
document each step, we do.

> If there are no Software Assessors, then there is no way to do changes
> to the software.  This was the headache we had in the past, we recently
> approved a second Software Assessor, and hopefully there are more on the
> way.

Okay, we have two of them. This is the minimum number to issue new
certificates. Better would be three and one team-leader. They all
participate to this list?

Nevertheless, where I can find all names of all actual groups? It is
realy important to me to make a dissension, because I follow the rule:
people first.

>> And maybe a second question about the following up duties? If we change
>> SP, we have to change SM too?
>
> Not sure I follow that one ... Heading 3.4.2 has content in both SP and SM.

Heading is not contents, headings have to be the same. A priori, but if
I understand, we have to change SM too. Sorry for my stupid questions,
it was not on my plane to come deeply into policy discussions. I would
like only to vote in this very important case.


Best Regards

Dieter

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature