Loomio
Sun 14 Feb 2016 10:04AM

We need to clarify the IT roles, and entrust our IT people.

V Vincent Public Seen by 42

IT volunteers who works on our infrastructure, security and resilience of our tools.

PD

Pascal Dk Sun 21 Feb 2016 7:22PM

I guess this role requires a minimum of IT skills...

What would they be ?

H

HgO Tue 1 Mar 2016 9:24PM

Could you define IT team ? Is it a bunch of people who have access to servers ? By this, do you just want to elect them at the GA ? But I thought we decided to avoid voting ? I am slightly confuse.

I think one of the mistakes we did in the past was to elect people in order to give them access to critical resources. So we had a very few guys working on IT, and when they left we were in trouble.

I think that the current IT team works well because we gave up those constraints. I am not saying that anybody in the Party can have freely access to servers, but the fact is that if I need some access, I'll just have to ask for it to the pirate in charge. Then, if he trusts me, he will eventually give me that access. Obviously, that's not a perfect situation, since I don't know what could happen on the long run, but at least we have a working IT team.

V

Vincent Wed 2 Mar 2016 11:51AM

There is a difference between the past situation and the current one: In this case we aim to empower an existing team instead of putting pressure on volunteers to obtain a predefined result.
I don't think we can clearly answer the following questions without a GA decision:

  • Who is allowed to access to the servers?
  • Who is allowed to access to the users data?
  • Who manages the domain names?
  • Who can we contact in case there is a problem with the IT resources?
  • Who is entitled to make decision impacting the current infrastructure?
  • Who can forbid a tool for security reason?
  • Who manages the access rights? On what basis?
TF

Thierry Fenasse Wed 2 Mar 2016 1:10PM

What is a «who» ... just a «nickname» or a «real person» with a suitable identity (eID? Member of a Web Of Trust?)

H

HgO Wed 2 Mar 2016 4:51PM

Now I agree with this proposition :)

Regarding the roles, I'd like to have something similar to a liquid democracy : the GA entrust a bunch of people, but then those people can entrust other people without asking to the GA. All that we ask is that IT guys take full responsability on people that they decide to trust, and of course they must provide a public list of entrusted people.

But I guess this must be discussed in the draft zone, right ?

H

Poll Created Wed 2 Mar 2016 4:54PM

I endorse "We need to clarify the IT roles, and entrust our IT people" for the Drafting Zone Closed Wed 2 Mar 2016 8:35PM

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 100.0% 3 VD H TF
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 47 PI RC KDV SR RVE SD Z V CC TVO PD DR PB JVO AI AB BG J JJ WF

3 of 50 people have participated (6%)

TF

Thierry Fenasse
Agree
Wed 2 Mar 2016 8:04PM

The :monkey: asks to the working :bee: that the :lion_face: king wants a :tools: with some kind of :lock: against the :spy: and in the same time he wants the :spider: from the :spider_web: to respect transparency and privacy. This will be funny.

PD

Pascal Dk Wed 2 Mar 2016 6:30PM

I have a strong position on this one.. gonna try to make myself clear :)

The issue here is the same than the Financial :
- we cannot work without it
- we lack people in charge
This were we are with the IT

With Financials, we've been further :
- someone we can trust proposed himself
- we have accepted the proposal and accepted the mandate (during a Lab, around 10 Pirates involved)
- the GA will just confirm that fact

With IT, we can do the same :
- we already have have people actually doing IT stuffs
- it does implies a kind of mandate
- the GA could just confirm that fact

The main difference is the amount of people involved with the IT, and the wider range of issues IT has to deal with.

But in the end, we achieved Level 1.
We have ressources : skilled people and infra capabilities.
Level two is about organizing them.
That's what we should start thinking about.

Then, we will be able to present something to the GA that works, and having clear mandates.

Also, at another level, as long as there is no legal structure behind the Party, considering civil responsibilities or any "official something" is pointless.
We are all individually involved and responsible of anything about "Pirates" by the law as long as we don't have this structure.
It can be a decision from an assembly or 2 people in a room, it makes no differences.

PD

Pascal Dk Wed 2 Mar 2016 6:33PM

I don't really know how to vote on this proposal. I don't think that could be a workable topic at the next GA, but still I agree on the fact that we need to go next step and clarify roles...

H

HgO Wed 2 Mar 2016 6:46PM

I partly agree with you. You are right when you talk about similarities with the Financial team, but in IT we do need more people, and this team must be able to evolve dynamically. That's my main concern, and I'm afraid that we will get stuck if we need the AG's approval for every IT guy that we want to enrol. Hence my suggestion.

On the other hand, I agree that we definetly need a kind of mandate from the GA, that's why I'm ok to work on this topic.

Regarding the responsabilities, that's another issue. For now, let's just say that if trust is broken, the person responsible for that will lose all of his privileges on servers. That's just an idea, and it's of course open to discussion.

Besides, I don't understand you. The proposal is only there for saying that we do need a kind of entrustment protocol for the IT team. You just agreed on that, so ? I think that this topic needs to be addressed during this GA, even if we will probably not find a solution yet.

Load More