Greg and Gary,

I think both of you make a lot of sense.  Greg, I probably didn't explain
our set up well enough.  (Don't really have time now.)  Two people who have
SM cap are upper mgr types.  They only have it in case of emergency.  One
other, our operator, has it because as in many HP shops, does more than a
":typical" operator.  He may have it taken back soon.  Not because of any
wrong-doing on his part--but because I want to scale this "SM business"
down.  The other two are me, the System manager and my boss, the Operations
manager.

I'm sure I could tweak accounts structures some more, but by hands are tied
to some extent because we are an Amisys shop.  We have individual clients
who use our systems, so I have to be extremely security conscious; e.g. be
certain Client A can't read Client B's data and vice versa.

Again, I can't thank all of you enough.  You're so generous with your time.
Now, get to work (he he!).

:-)

Bob S.

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Stigers, Greg [And]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 4:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] SM Capability Issue


X-no-Archive:yes
I agree with both of you. If you are going to insist that only n people can
sign on as manager.sys, you very well better be able to provide impressive
turn-around on service requests, preferably at a level of sophistication
that adds value to the thing done, at the very least avoiding known
problems. Also, you probably need to have some mechanism in place, other
than the memory of n people, of what system manager did what when, so you
can evidence this on demand, and answer any questions or accusations that
may occur later. I do most admin in job streams, so we have the stdlists as
hard evidence.

Of course, if five people from two groups have SM, I wonder "if the system
is set up correctly". There are almost certainly some issues and practices
to address.

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Sielaff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 5:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SM Capability Issue

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

<snip>
> 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?
<snip>