Timwi wrote:
However, I guess what actually irritates me is the
combination of that
*and* the fact that there are very few other people with the relevant
access => the brickwall effect. I have often moaned that too few people
have access to do the things smaller projects need to have done (this
applies to pretty much all projects, not just tlh), and unfortunately it
has often been misinterpreted to mean that I am insisting on receiving
access myself. I just think that if you are going to refuse to do
something that is in your power to do, then you should at least empower
someone else to do it instead.
Yes, I agree with you. The problem is that to have shell access requires
a consensus of trust from several people. That's probably an appropriate
requirement considering anyone with shell access can destroy the last
week or two of edits to the site, or access private user data. I can't
in good conscience give it to anyone who wants to do something that I
don't want to do. And to search for something that I don't want to do
and then offer to do it in exchange for shell access is just bribery.
My suggestion for dealing with this problem was to split the cluster, to
dedicate small amount of hardware to the smaller projects, and then have
a more liberal access policy for that dedicated hardware. However Jimbo
was strongly against it.
-- Tim Starling