On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Matt Simmons <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Do you think that a policy as such should spell out "if this then this > happens"? It seems like doing that would leave lots of potential for the > cases that we'd never think to cover, but I'm interested in other > viewpoints. > One of the issues the Ohio LinuxFest team have discussed about our Conduct Policy is the problem that geeks are armchair lawyers. If you get too specific, you can easily paint yourself into a corner. Someone claiming "It says I can't do X, but it doesn't say I can't do Y" is a big worry. Because of that we were careful to place in words like, "includes but not limited to" and a catch-all at the bottom that anyone may be removed at any time "for any reason." Something to keep in mind is that the document will likely not be static. We drafted our first policy some years ago, which was just a paragraph. We expanded it over a year ago into a full policy and now, with a new security chair, are looking at it again. In my unhumble opinion we should be pulling it out at least once a year and re-examining it; you may wish to do the same with yours. Just my $1.01. Moose Grumpy Old Bat
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
