SCN: Responsibility (was: Re: A Preliminary Review of SSL)

[J. Johnson]

Is Operations "irresponsible"?  Kurt's comment is very profound.  Keep in
mind that "irresponsible" does _not_ mean (as is popularly misconceived) 
to fail in or avoid responsibility.  It means (primarily) not being liable
to be called to account or held answerable.  

For example, suppose that one of our disk partitions keeps filling up
(let's call it '/home0'), and that when it does sendmail starts crashing
when it attempts delivery to users on /home0.  Who's responsible for
fixing this?  Surprise--no one!  Because we have never fixed any
responsibility.  So how can _anyone_ be irresponsible in not attending to
it?  (Hey, not me--I didn't cause it!  I'm not responsible!!!)

That is the point of the quote from J. S. Mill I posted last fall:  every
function needs to be "the appointed the duty of some individual. ...
Responsibility is null when nobody knows who is responsible."

As to who _should_ be responsible for various matters:  well, who should
be responsible for determining that?  And why would anyone voluntarily
sign up to be nailed to a door? 

=== JJ =================================================================

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *