From: Siobhan McKenna To: mindschair@eircom.net Subject: minds Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 18:17:29 +0100 (BST) Content-Type: text/plain hey dave, its siobhan here. whats up with minds and is there any eta on a fix? have the computer center set a date yet or have they gotten in touch at all? Siobhan ===== Well ... what can i say ... youve just been mailed by me Be proud ... not everyone can say that ... or can they?? **EVIL GRIN** **EVIL LAUGHTER** **EVIL LOOKS** But im sweet and innocent ... would i be EVIL? --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Barrett" To: Siobhan McKenna Subject: Re: minds Date: Tuesday, 19 Jun 2001 16:26:41 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain Siobhan McKenna wrote: > its siobhan here. whats up with minds and is there > any eta on a fix? Unplugged as per request from the CC, James is "working" on a firewall. Due up Monday evening. I know it's Tuesday now BTW. > have the computer center set a date yet or have they > gotten in touch at all? They want 23rd July, w/3 staffers. Bit of a problem too. Cian will be back and I believe he should attend, but that will bring the ration of us:them to 2:1, which is unacceptable. Unconsciously, they will act more defensively, and our objectives will be harder to attain. We will intimidate them. I'm looking for people to volunteer to not come (from the six we have). If no-one else is willing to leave, myself and Phil will (but I don't think *that's* a good idea either, but better for our ultimate aims). I know you want to help out more, and that I've been taking a lot of the Minds work on myself, but I will need you to explain exactly what you can bring to this meeting. Personally I think the presence of Pres + Vice Pres will give added importance to this meeting, but I'd like you to give me other reasons. I'm going to ask the same of Phil, Des and Kevin. David (badly worded) --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Siobhan McKenna To: mindschair@eircom.net Subject: minds Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:38:48 +0100 (BST) Content-Type: text/plain Dave, Okay, I'm guessing that james hasnt got the firewall up yet and annoying as it is ... it is understandable! > > have the computer center set a date yet or have > they > > gotten in touch at all? > They want 23rd July, w/3 staffers. July 23rd is okay ... why 3 staff? have they given a reason? > > Bit of a problem too. Cian will be back and I > believe he should attend, but that will bring the > ration of us:them to 2:1, which is unacceptable. I agree Cian should attend. Hes the most experienced person to talk about the system and if they want anything specific done, he is ultimately going to be the one making changes along with Phil. > Unconsciously, they will act more defensively, and > our objectives will be harder to attain. We will > intimidate them. I understand this and again I agree. > > I'm looking for people to volunteer to not come > (from the six we have). If no-one else is willing to > leave, myself and Phil will (but I don't think > *that's* a good idea either, but better for our > ultimate aims). > That is not good either and is a bad solution. However, as to the voluntary dropping out that is a bad idea! Also the assumption that Chair and Vice showing up making the meeting more important than it really is, I have to say that this is not really the case. My suggestion for the meeting is this! President, Vice President and either one or two sys admins. Reason: The society is run by the president and vice president and any meetings involving the society should be attended by both of these or in the absence of the VP then the Secretary, president to be in charge, vicepresident to backup, or include points that may have been forgotten, etc. The sys admin should be there to answer any questions about the system should the need arise! Personally, I see no need for the pro or treasurer to be at the meeting. Its nothing personal in this its just that they have no bearing on the meeting. Wait until Cian asks to be involved in the meeting because even though i agree that if he asks then he should be allowed, the meeting is not going to be totally technical. Phil knows what has been done to the system since we were taken offline, changes, problems, etc. The meeting is going to be political as well with us taking rationally to the CC. And you have to admit that you and phil are not always the most rational of people when it comes to minds. I am more levelheaded and can listen to what people are saying. You and phil tend to jump to conclusions quickly. You did in the meeting with James after we got the plug pulled and before we were unofficially plugged back in! BTW I think you forgot that Andy asked to be general nosey person at the meeting, it was in the newsgroups. There is no need for that! If it is just Chair, Vice-Chair and Sys admin(s) then the meeting will be back to a 1:1 ratio (or 4:3 if two sys admins) and will be a meeting on equal footing! Siobhan --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Barrett" To: Siobhan McKenna Subject: Re: minds Date: Wednesday, 20 Jun 2001 23:39:45 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain Siobhan McKenna wrote: > Okay, I'm guessing that james hasnt got the firewall > up yet and annoying as it is ... it is understandable! Indeed. He finally *started* work on it today. > July 23rd is okay ... why 3 staff? > have they given a reason? Dunno. Why not? The head of the CC will be there, and the User Support Co-ordinator... I'm not sure about the other person, though I can look that up. I got the letter about an hour after Minds was taken down. Bummer. > I agree Cian should attend. Hes the most experienced > person to talk about the system and if they want > anything specific done, he is ultimately going to be > the one making changes along with Phil. Actually, it'll be me and Phil (Minds) and John Keating and Bart (NUI TIE) that will be setting up the new system (at least the bones of it)... the changes are going to be done by the CC probably. > > I'm looking for people to volunteer to not come > > (from the six we have). If no-one else is willing to > > leave, myself and Phil will (but I don't think > > *that's* a good idea either, but better for our > > ultimate aims). > That is not good either and is a bad solution. > However, as to the voluntary dropping out that is a > bad idea! It's a much better idea than whinging. I'd rather have people voluntarily give up their places for the good of the society than be booted off... but I agree that myself and Phil leaving would be stupid. > Also the assumption that Chair and Vice > showing up making the meeting more important than it > really is, I have to say that this is not really the > case. You misunderstood me. The presence of both would make the meeting seem more important to the society than if only one came along. That said, I would prefer a slimmer group. Six is a bit too much. > My suggestion for the meeting is this! > President, Vice President and either one or two sys > admins. > Reason: The society is run by the president and vice > president and any meetings involving the society > should be attended by both of these or in the absence > of the VP then the Secretary, president to be in > charge, vicepresident to backup, or include points > that may have been forgotten, etc. The sys admin > should be there to answer any questions about the > system should the need arise! I disagree. I think Phil, Cian and myself *have* to go; but anyone else has to give me a damn good reason for me to accept them going. I also think most of that paragraph is fluff :) > Personally, I see no need for the pro or treasurer to > be at the meeting. Its nothing personal in this its > just that they have no bearing on the meeting. I understand, and I'm sure they will... but isn't that the point I made? > Wait until Cian asks to be involved in the meeting > because even though i agree that if he asks then he > should be allowed, the meeting is not going to be > totally technical. Phil knows what has been done to > the system since we were taken offline, changes, > problems, etc. The meeting is going to be political > as well with us taking rationally to the CC. He said he could come and I told him he should. Then I started thinking, hang on, group bloat: then *Cian* said that, and then I was double worried. However, with the meetings me and Phil have been having with John Keating it seems the politics are something we don't need to worry about. I honestly believe that this meeting will be a *very* technical description on how Minds is safe. > And you have to admit that you and phil are not always > the most rational of people when it comes to minds. I > am more levelheaded and can listen to what people are > saying. You and phil tend to jump to conclusions > quickly. Er, that's a conclusion jumped to too quickly. > You did in the meeting with James after we > got the plug pulled and before we were unofficially > plugged back in! I don't remember that... refresh my memory? > BTW I think you forgot that Andy asked to be general > nosey person at the meeting, it was in the newsgroups. > There is no need for that! I think that was mainly a laugh... I never considered him part of the group, and I had a discussion with it about him (I think). > If it is just Chair, Vice-Chair and Sys admin(s) then > the meeting will be back to a 1:1 ratio (or 4:3 if two > sys admins) and will be a meeting on equal footing! Cian isn't one of our sysadmins, believe it or not. That said, Aidan isn't really up to speed with the current state of everything. I think this year proves that you can't have 3rd year CSSE people on the day-to-day committee. That said, me or Phil (or both) might be working on the same machine as Minds for our work experience, so that could work things out for us :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Siobhan McKenna To: mindschair@eircom.net Subject: Re: minds Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:45:17 +0100 (BST) Content-Type: text/plain > Actually, it'll be me and Phil (Minds) and John > Keating and Bart (NUI TIE) that will be setting up > the new system (at least the bones of it)... the > changes are going to be done by the CC probably. I wasnt talking about the server itself (JK and Bart) i was talking about the minds end of it! > > You misunderstood me. The presence of both would > make the meeting seem more important to the society > than if only one came along. That said, I would > prefer a slimmer group. Six is a bit too much. I still dont agree with you on the p and vp both going but i agree on the fact that 6 is too many > > I disagree. I think Phil, Cian and myself *have* to > go; but anyone else has to give me a damn good > reason for me to accept them going. I also think > most of that paragraph is fluff :) > > I understand, and I'm sure they will... but isn't > that the point I made? No thats not the point you made! > He said he could come and I told him he should. Then > I started thinking, hang on, group bloat: then > *Cian* said that, and then I was double worried. > However, with the meetings me and Phil have been > having with John Keating it seems the politics are > something we don't need to worry about. I honestly > believe that this meeting will be a *very* technical > description on how Minds is safe. I still think that this being the computer center and them being run by john o connell, VERY ANTI MINDS! (he goes red at the mention of us) that politics will still be involved! He will probably have questions laid out that we will have to answer. But as well as the technical side of how its safe there is another side of that! BTW next year after fairs day when people get new accounts I suggest that on their first login they have to read and agree to on the screen regarding our rules! Away from the topic i know! > > Er, that's a conclusion jumped to too quickly. No its not dave. I can find lots of people to back me up on that point! > > > You did in the meeting with James after we > > got the plug pulled and before we were > unofficially > > plugged back in! > I don't remember that... refresh my memory? We were in the room around the table talking to james about plugging minds back in. (the one nearly opposite the post grad lab) You were discussing the CC and not in very nice terms and what you wouldnt do if they happened to ask them. You were being unreasonable at the time! James was the one who said most of the relevant points in that meeting and he was the one that suggested compromises! all you and phil could do was to thrash the computer center. > Cian isn't one of our sysadmins, believe it or not. I know ... but you are bringing him along because hes gonna be working on the system ... so therefore hes there in an unofficial sys admin capacity! > That said, Aidan isn't really up to speed with the > current state of everything. I think this year > proves that you can't have 3rd year CSSE people on > the day-to-day committee. I NEVER suggested Aiden! Yeah, but i wouldnt say that totally, this year cant be the definitive proof that 3rd years dont do anything on the committee! Nobody has heard from aiden for a long time as far as i know! > That said, me or Phil (or both) might be working on > the same machine as Minds for our work experience, > so that could work things out for us :) Yeah but thats not a guarantee! you could be on the total other side of the city! I wouldnt bring up that point at the meeting! Have you gotten anything back from kev or des yet? --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Barrett" To: Siobhan McKenna Subject: Re: minds Date: Saturday, 23 Jun 2001 14:55:59 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain Siobhan McKenna wrote: > > Actually, it'll be me and Phil (Minds) and John > > Keating and Bart (NUI TIE) that will be setting up > > the new system (at least the bones of it)... the > > changes are going to be done by the CC probably. > I wasnt talking about the server itself (JK and Bart) > i was talking about the minds end of it! What? Okay, lets make this clear. The current Minds machine will probably only be accessable from one IP... the IP of our side of the new machine. We can then allow all traffic through that connection, and allow experimental OS's and beta webservers/tools to be run on any other machine. The other machine set up will be decided with John O'Connell long before this fluff meeting (Keating will be meeting with him, and maybe me, Phil and Bart too, I dunno). > > You misunderstood me. The presence of both would > > make the meeting seem more important to the society > > than if only one came along. That said, I would > > prefer a slimmer group. Six is a bit too much. > I still dont agree with you on the p and vp both going > but i agree on the fact that 6 is too many It's kind of obvious, Siobhan. The President and Vice-President are the "leaders" of the group. > > I understand, and I'm sure they will... but isn't > > that the point I made? > No thats not the point you made! Looking over my letter, it seems ambiguous and it's badly worded, so I'll give you that. > > He said he could come and I told him he should. Then > > I started thinking, hang on, group bloat: then > > *Cian* said that, and then I was double worried. > > However, with the meetings me and Phil have been > > having with John Keating it seems the politics are > > something we don't need to worry about. I honestly > > believe that this meeting will be a *very* technical > > description on how Minds is safe. > I still think that this being the computer center and > them being run by john o connell, VERY ANTI MINDS! I don't think he is. Tell me, where did you get your information from? While talking to John Keating about this it seems that he's primarily concerned about us doing anything that'll piss of Smyth, who they don't get along with very well economically. > (he > goes red at the mention of us) Interesting. Can you get a video? :) > He will probably have questions > laid out that we will have to answer. And? > But as well as > the technical side of how its safe there is another > side of that! Not really. I think the constitution rounds off everyone's responsibilities quite nicely. What do you mean? > BTW next year after fairs day when people get new > accounts I suggest that on their first login they have > to read and agree to on the screen regarding our > rules! > Away from the topic i know! I think we can just change the MOTD to say: IMPORTANT! Use of this system is subject to the rules and regulations of Minds. Read http://minds.may.ie/rules.html for more details. > > Er, that's a conclusion jumped to too quickly. > No its not dave. I can find lots of people to back me > up on that point! You'll find I can be surprisingly rational. > > I don't remember that... refresh my memory? > We were in the room around the table talking to james > about plugging minds back in. (the one nearly opposite > the post grad lab) You were discussing the CC and not > in very nice terms and what you wouldnt do if they > happened to ask them. You were being unreasonable at > the time! James was the one who said most of the > relevant points in that meeting and he was the one > that suggested compromises! all you and phil could do > was to thrash the computer center. I think the context was that the CC were questioning our security and me and Phil were saying how easy it would be to cause harm to *them*... them acting a bit like Murdoch calling Mr T "a wuss". > > That said, Aidan isn't really up to speed with the > > current state of everything. I think this year > > proves that you can't have 3rd year CSSE people on > > the day-to-day committee. > I NEVER suggested Aiden! Yeah, but i wouldnt say that > totally, this year cant be the definitive proof that > 3rd years dont do anything on the committee! > Nobody has heard from aiden for a long time as far as > i know! You don't understand... I was simply saying that we shouldn't bring Aidan, even though he's our other "official" sysadmin. > > That said, me or Phil (or both) might be working on > > the same machine as Minds for our work experience, > > so that could work things out for us :) > Yeah but thats not a guarantee! you could be on the > total other side of the city! I wouldnt bring up that > point at the meeting! Argh. That's pretty obvious. > Have you gotten anything back from kev or des yet? Not yet. David