[MAD-SAGE] work ethics

[Matt Grapenthien grapes@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> Sure this didn't come from the Management Guild (without the
> "System" part :-)? 
> 
> Seriously though I don't think we can take one single type of position in an
> organization and apply some high-falutin' standards that are many orders of
> magnitude more stringent than any other position there. Either
> everyone gets on the "exemplary behavior" boat or nobody does, IMHO. 

I disagree.  You can, and should, adhere to ethical standards in your
work, regardless of what others do.  Why does the ethics of others have to
affect what you do?

The power and influence a system administrator has over almost everyone
else in the organization demands a higher standard of "exemplary behavior"
and trust.

> This reminds me of a job interview I had once that went 
> "something" like this: "What if you archived some files and then a very
> important user got extremely angry and demanded the root password?" I mumbled
> something incoherent. "Then what if they then grabbed your leg". Mumble.. "Then
> what if they started biting your ankle?" Mumble Mumble. "And then they started
> biting your arm?" Mumble! "And then they lit your office on fire" Mumble!!...
> and on and on it went. Did the job-from-Bad- Place people really believe that it
> SHOULD be that way? I assumed
> the all-male interview brigade was just hamming it up to give me the message to
> shove off. The thought never crossed my mind that they were actually SERIOUS
> that the sysadmins must always keep a stiff upper lip
> regardless of any acting out on the part of users, rather like those
> Tower Guards in England.

They absolutely must.  Are you saying that it's okay to ignore a user's
problem or to divulge sensitive information in certain situations,
depending on the behavior of the user? 

I don't think the questions they asked were that unreasonable - just
trying to find out where you would draw the line.  If someone slipped you
twenty dollars and asked for another user's mail?  $10,000?

> I certainly do not put my seal of approval on such an ultra-conservative
> document. I guess I'm in the wrong guild. Where can I sign up for the "System
> administration is fun and profitable" guild?

I wouldn't call it "ultra-conservative".  It doesn't say you may not enjoy
your job, or that you can't make good money.  I don't see the Code of
Ethics as conflicting with either in any way, just that your integrity
must take priority. 

> BTW I note there is nothing in the ethics about equality and diversity
> in hiring and dealing with other sysadmins, but plenty as regards users.
> Women and minorities are admins too NOT just users. 

Again, this is unfounded.  There is nothing in the document that assumes a
particular race or gender.  It doesn't say or imply anything about admins
being male. 

I know at least a few of the people who worked on this, and can assure you
they are very aware of and sensitive to equality issues.  I don't see any
of the biases you seem to be accusing them of.  Canon 2 states, "System
administrators shall not act with, nor tolerate from others,
discrimination between authorized users based on any commonly recognized
grounds (e.g., age, gender, religion, etc.), except where such
discrimination (e.g., with respect to unauthorized users as a class) is a
necessary part of their job, and then only to the extent that such
treatment is required in dealing with the issue at hand." 

I suspect hiring is not addressed because it is not an integral part of
the job of a system administrator, and doesn't apply at all to many of us.

SAGE welcomes comments on the Code, as the top line states.

Matt