Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT iang.org>]

On 24/03/2010 10:47, Dieter Hennig wrote:

> > > 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?


Sorry, above I meant to write Access Engineer.  But I see you are keen 
on Application Engineer.  I'm writing too fast....

If there is no Application Engineer, there would be no changes to the 
software in general.

> If there would be a mistake (very, very small of
> course) in our construction, how would be eliminate that?


I'm not sure I follow you.  If there is a mistake in the policy we would 
need some next text and then to vote it through.

If there is a mistake made in applying a change, then it should be dealt 
with according to the policy.


> 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.


Yes, none of that is a problem because you at ETH are not under SP.  SP 
is only for the critical teams:  Software, Sysadm, Access, Support, etc.


> > 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.

Indeed.

> They all
> participate to this list?


No, unlikely because this is the policy list.  Here we write the policy, 
and then it gets "thrown over the wall" for the Community to deal with. 
 We'd like as many participants as possible to be here, but mostly they 
don't.


> 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.


You should ask all the team leaders, or if dissatisfied, the board. 
Policy group has no mandate to ask about who is staffing what area.


> > > 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.


Ah, the headings are different?  Which are different?  This then is 
something for the team leaders to update.  They are responsible for 
their sections in the SM.

Sorry, writing fast here, no time to go digging and comparing.


iang