HP3000-L Archives

June 2000, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Gary Sielaff <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Gary Sielaff <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:33:26 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (78 lines)
Sorry Barry but I strongly disagree.  If the systgem is set up correctly,
the only person that needs SM capability is the System Manager.
That's my final answer.
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Barry Durand <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] SM Capability Issue


> The main thing I can think of is that if you do hold
> firm that you don't want this person to have SM then you
> (or someone else) will have to do anything he can not.  How
> much trouble will that be for you?  Also, how loud will this
> person complain when he can't get his job done because he does
> not have the capabilities to do what he wants (especially if
> he can't find someone who does)?  Will you (or whomever) be able
> to provide a reasonable turnaround time for this person's request?
>
> I ran across this situation often at my last job.  Sometimes it was
> worth it, sometimes it was not.
>
> Good Luck,
>
> Barry
>
>
> On 2 Jun 00, at 14:48, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > Hello All!
> >
> > I would appreciate any comments you might have regarding SM capability.
We
> > have five folks who have SM capability on our production box.  Three are
> > Ops; two "upper management".  I am being asked to give our Senior
> > programmer, who now has the title of  "Manager of Production Support",
SM
> > capability.
> >
> > Any IT audits I've gone through have made it clear to me that Ops and
> > Programming should be very separate functions.  Operations moves code
into
> > production.  I've asked for justification, and I was told this person
needs
> > it for account maintenance, udc maintenance, and copying files across
> > accounts.  Only account maintenance can't be done without SM, and I
contend
> > that should be an Operations function.
> >
> > As with any System Manager, I am ultimately responsible for what happens
on
> > the machine and I'm not comfortable giving this out to somebody who is
> > bright, but may not understand the ramifications of changes to udcs,
> > third-party software accounts, etc.
> >
> > So, yes or no?  Your reasons why you feel the way you do would be
greatly
> > appreciated!    :-)
> >
> > Bob Sorenson
> > System Manager
> >
> > INFOTRUST
> > 1615 Lakeside Drive - Ste 200
> > Waukegan, IL  60085
> > Voice:  847 887-8087
> > Fax:    847 887-8001
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Barry Durand           [log in to unmask]
> Allegro Consultants    408.252.2330
> Opinions are mine, not my employer's
> ------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2