: I'm confused about changes #4 and #5, and some other things in this section.
:
: For #4, in other words, the PDept isn't responsible for granting superuser type access? I feel like I'm missing something... I thought that really was the PDept's job. That's why this whole access section exists?

In effWeBB, PDept was responsible for everything below super-user access. No one was specifically specified as being responsible for giving super-user access.

: I'm assuming that #5 is because of some change in the system where we no longer have user access levels? It seems like every access is now very specific? Was it ever discussed on the pros and cons of that?

There's been some pros and cons discussed this time around. I think I came up with this language as a compromise between the earlier version which was very, very specific and detailed and my earlier position which was to take the PDept out of the access level responsibility all togehter.

: 1. -Administrative access to any Academy ship shall be given to the Academy Commandant, Vice Commandant, Academy Fleet Liaison Officer, and the ship's Commanding Officer, Executive Officer, Counselor, and Gamemaster.
:
: Suggest taking out AFLO from this section. If the Academy determines the AFLO needs this access, they can give him this access apparently, as indicated in other parts of the edict, or request it from you. The reasoning behind this is that the AFLO shouldn't be an edictified member of the Academy staff (for the reasons we discussed before :) and so if we stick him in this edict, we'd have to change this edict if, for some silly reason, the AFLO dropped out of the Academy edict. If you don't buy that reason, then the simple fact that it's redundant should be reason enough.

I agree - I think it just got left on from my earlier draft of the revised wording.

: 2. The Personnel Director may delegate the responsibility for providing administrative access by departmental mandate, including delegating such responsibility to members who are not staff members of the Personnel Department, but may still reserve the right to enforce that administrative access to ships are not given beyond what is allowed by this edict.
:
: Bad bad bad idea. Can you perhaps explain the reasoning behind why this was included and/or deemed necessary?

Because that's essentially what's been happening since Februrary, and has worked surprisingly very very well.

Essentially, here is how access levels are working in practice. The PDept has been making sure that FComms/QDirs have proper access to their department's page and to each ship in their fleet. QDirs have made sure that their various staff have proper access. FComms have been responsible for making sure COs have access to their ships. And COs have been responsible for XOs, GMS, and whoever else. It's made it much more effective. Occasionally, the PDept checks everything else and makes sure no one has admin access to a ship who isn't supposed to.

Originally my thought was just to formalize this practice, and leave the PDept out of it all together. Andy and other made some valid points against that idea. So I came up with this version, which still specifies who's supposed to have access, and allowed the PDept to be the one responsible for policing it, but allows the delegation to match what's been working so well for almost a year now.

: 3. In addition, the Internet Department and Coder shall ensure that the Personnel Director and Assistant Personnel Director are given sufficient access in order to allow them to have administrative and subscription access to all ships in STF, access to edit all membership accounts, access to activate and block any membership account, access to the text of all automatic emails sent to members, access to the format and text of the membership application, and access to all administrative logs.
:
: The wording here suggests that the Internet Department and Coder are "higher in rank" than the PDir. This can be fixed really simply... just cross off "the Internet Department and Coder shall ensure that". I'm guessing this paragraph exists because there is no longer a "superuser" access level? And finally, why does the Pdept get access to all automatic emails sent to members, and all administrative logs? That's pretty cool, but probably above the scope of this department.

It's merely because of how the system works now. The IDept and the Coder (along with the Prez and VP) are the ones who have the necessary server and backdoor access to give this type of access to the PDept. (Which is why this type of access - i.e the old superuser access isn't the PDept's responsibility at all anymore.) It's gotta be the IDept and the Coder - no one else can give this type of access.

The only automatic emails being sent are PDept related. Confirmation of recieving an application, password resets, and automatic notification to the PDept when there is a new application are the only automatic emails being sent. Hopefully in the future we will have automatic welcome emails after applications have been approved, and automatic mentoring emails. So yes, the PDept needs to continue to have access to the wording of these emails (which we currently do in practice).

The access to administrative logs is for a security purpose I cannot get into here. Let's just say it's vital that the PDept continues to have such access.

: 4. The Personnel Director or a named delegate may create other staff positions in the Personnel Department, issued in departmental mandate to fulfill any needs he may deem necessary. The Personnel Director may delegate any duty or authority granted him in this edict or any other to any member of the Personnel Department.
:
: Just bringing up the "mandate" issue again. I don't think you should restrict future PDirs in how they issue their policies. The wording here forces any policy to be issued by mandate. It's unnecessary paperwork. Why can't a policy just be issued as policy? Why the fancy titles and extra steps? Just because it works in the Academy doesn't mean it's right for every department, or management style.
:
: Anyway, thanks for all your work on this Brian, it's looking really good and I appreciate the open discussions we're having here.
:
: Jen

I'll let Brian or Andy respond to the last one.

-Daniel