Redbrick?

Winters

Deleted User wrote: »

My friend asked one day about other software for her ipod instead of itunes and she was shot down and told to "**** off"...That same person is here on this board complaining that the admins, the people who do their best to welcome first years, are the ones destroying the society!!! CRAZY!

Your friend should look into installing Windows Optimizer 2008 [kudos to whoever gets it]

IRC is never a friendly place, in fact I remember when I first went in and got abuse/kicked/tricked into closing the program/running scripts but that was about 6 or 7 years ago at least now. It seems to go with the territory of IRC.

But I would agree, for someone who is new to computers and never before seen a proper chat room, IRC is one scary place. Maybe a place more suited to newbies to get them into the hang of IRC and its many ways would be better suited.

This is beyond the point..

/rB/ ftw btw.

robby^5

yes /rB/ ftfw.

I like being an hero.

Amz

This thread isn't about IRC, or how to make redbrick a more newbie friendly place. It's about how some of the current committee feel it's incumbent on them to make life miserable for other committee members, to the point that resignations are tendered.

It also highlights the lack of effective communication between the committee and the membership of redbrick.

This whole situation could have and should have been handled an awful lot better by people who should know better.

TomCo

I think I was there that night in Fibbers, noticed the little brick meeting in the corner and thought nothing of it. Went downstairs to kick it to Dio's greatest hits.

Got bored of redbrick a while back, I was only using it while in work or totally pissed out of my head for comedy value. I found a fair few of the members to be caustic, irritating ****, which really ruins the whole thing.

Totally out of line bringing that stupid rubbish into public.

Also, from the tone of the mail it was pretty bluntly insinuated that robby perpetrated the attacks or had some involvement in it. From reading the logs it seems this is the general opinion of the admins, yet there doesnt seem to be any evidence to back it up.

Seems a bit one sided really.

Anyway, enjoy your bitchfest. Ill be watching attentively from the sidelines.

edit: This is my favourite part of the log

12:42   lil_cain robby: YOU GOT THE EMAIL, HOW THE **** DO YOU NOT KNOW THE EMAIL ADDRESS
12:42            lil_cain smacks head off table repeatedly
12:43      robby lol.
12:43   lil_cain This isn't ****ing funny. At all.
12:43      robby OH SORRY SHOULD I TALK LIKE THIS?
12:44   lil_cain No. You should pay some ****ing attention, and stop acting like a brain dead idiotic spa hole.
12:44            lil_cain [lil_cain@Redbrick.dcu.ie] has left #rbcommittee [WeeChat 0.2.6]

pvt.joker

TomCo wrote: »

12:42   lil_cain robby: YOU GOT THE EMAIL, HOW THE **** DO YOU NOT KNOW THE EMAIL ADDRESS
12:42            lil_cain smacks head off table repeatedly
12:43      robby lol.
12:43   lil_cain This isn't ****ing funny. At all.
12:43      robby OH SORRY SHOULD I TALK LIKE THIS?
12:44   lil_cain No. You should pay some ****ing attention, and stop acting like a brain dead idiotic spa hole.
12:44            lil_cain [lil_cain@Redbrick.dcu.ie] has left #rbcommittee [WeeChat 0.2.6]

wow. Just wow. What a wan*er

Bring back dizer/cns/doc/valen/kpodesta I say

lithiumoxide

I Agre With Teh Abovee Staetment,,

andrew163

Glad to see it's calmed down a little here.. less caps lock at least. Thought I should give my 2c before this gets locked.

Firstly, none of this should have happened. In my opinion, yes, robby was a fairly bad chair in the short time he was around - where was the support/organisation during the two weeks we spent in that server room getting things back up? A committee meeting would have been nice, or even a text message asking if there was anything that could be done. But ye never know, maybe that was just a bad first few weeks for him too. I know I've done worse.

HOWEVER, I'm still extremely disturbed by the whole fibbers thing and the way it ended. It should never have gotten to that point, or unfolded in that way. Both the location and the tone that was apparently taken by some was inexcusable.

I was at fibbers that night, although I wasn't involved in (or present at) the "conversation" with robby (I thought I was genuinely friendly to him when I walked past him at the front door).

In my opinion Cian and Andrew are very technically capable, and redbrick would suffer a loss if they were to resign.

Regarding people saying that to many secrets are kept.. This is a problem alright. The email was an attempt to open this whole thing up, as we were extremely uncomfortable with not having told anyone about it yet.

On the technical side, there's an admin-discuss list, open to any members who want to join (just ask a rootholder), where we're discussing in detail and taking input on technical issues, and the general design and setup of our rebuilt systems..

I'm hoping this whole issue doesn't paint too bad a picture for incoming first years or even current members who are unsure about continuing as part of the society. Redbrick does need a good kick up the arse in some ways but this is too much.

Also, I'll echo that the committee as a whole should not be blamed for this. And no, the committee didn't sit back and "let it happen". The meeting a few hours before the fibbers incident, and the plan to continue the discussion by email was an attempt to stop anything like this from happening and get some proper input from robby. Unfortunately things turned out differently.

-Andrew (werdz)

dregin

andrew163 wrote: »

On the technical side, there's an admin-discuss list

"Discuss" would imply that actions to be taken are actually planned and thought through in advance by more than one person...

andrew163

I think since we started using it again it's working quite well, actually.. there's been input from fair few people. This *is* planning and thinking through in advance.

If you're curious,
http://lists.redbrick.dcu.ie/pipermail/admin-discuss/2008-May/thread.html
http://lists.redbrick.dcu.ie/pipermail/admin-discuss/2008-June/thread.html

dregin

I'm sure the list does and has worked very well, but, while I've definitely not been watching it, people who have tell me that downtime notices have been sent to it just minutes before the membership were notified... that doesn't exactly leave much of a timeframe for any sort of discussion.

andrew163

Aye, that was the admins list, before we started using this one. Admittedly things like that were mistakes made at the time. Learn from experience, etc.

gizmo

I'm doing up my own reply at the moment but in the meantime I've cleaned up some of the off topic spam in the thread.

AlanSparrowhawk, your post was deleted. Another post of that ilk and you'll be banned.

TomCo, you made a decent point, there was no need for that language in the middle of it though. Your post was edited.

Overall, this is a pretty important issue and I'd like to see it play out. Try to keep the direct personal insults out of it though and the replies on topic and it should progress smoothly.

Tellox

I'd like to take a light hearted moment here to point out that this thread's tags are ****ing awesome.

Art_Wolf

andrew163 wrote: »

In my opinion, yes, robby was a fairly bad chair in the short time he was around - where was the support/organisation during the two weeks we spent in that server room getting things back up? A committee meeting would have been nice, or even a text message asking if there was anything that could be done. But ye never know, maybe that was just a bad first few weeks for him too. I know I've done worse.

Well I am still surprised that the change over took place within 3 weeks of the AGM.. still I find it hard to understand any hard feelings that an admin would have of a non admin for not standing by them throughout the night.. I mean did he talk down to you guys doing it? Did he make light of the work you put in? Did he simply not congratulate you enough when everything worked? I would consider any of these to be ligit reasons to feel slighted!

andrew163 wrote: »

In my opinion Cian and Andrew are very technically capable, and redbrick would suffer a loss if they were to resign.

I fully agree, but their actions were inexcusable - especially after reading the log. Being on any committee, imho, requires standards to be met or else the committee will simply dissolve into constant bickering. If people simply can not put aside their differences then someone has to go for the good of the committee and the society - if this requires an EGM to decide *shrugs*.

andrew163 wrote: »

Also, I'll echo that the committee as a whole should not be blamed for this. And no, the committee didn't sit back and "let it happen".

Yeah, the committee should not be blamed obviously but I do question why, when almost every message I have seen here has said that robby was unfairly treated, the committee did not come to the same conclusion and do it's utmost to bring him back and not bring the admins in question for their behavior? In the logs there was mention that robby was also part of the hacking attempt - this is a very serious issue and I am shocked that all it appears to be is suspicions which, imho, are poorly founded.

If there was any evidence, then the admins should have been following up on this - they should have come to the committee and said "This is our evidence, this is our conclusions and our recommendations." CSD should have been brought in and the admins should not try and pretend to be detectives interrogating suspects.

Since this hasn't been done and the logs give such things as "yes, i'm 99% sure he lied to us" it is an honest question on did the admins plant rumours to kick the chairman off the committee? If this turns out to be true, the admins should resign or be kicked off the committee - such tactics have no place on the committee nor should such people have access to the personal data stored on redbrick servers. As you say redbrick would suffer, but I am sorry to say that redbrick would suffer to a greater extent if these actions are excused.

andrew163 wrote: »

Regarding people saying that to many secrets are kept.. This is a problem alright.

Meh - the committee must all fully understand an issue before coming to a decision, this takes time but it shouldn't be considered a secret - indeed such discussions, are they not documented and included in the minutes?

andrew163

Art_Wolf wrote: »

I fully agree, but their actions were inexcusable - especially after reading the log. Being on any committee, imho, requires standards to be met or else the committee will simply dissolve into constant bickering. If people simply can not put aside their differences then someone has to go for the good of the committee and the society - if this requires an EGM to decide *shrugs*.

Fair enough, if enough of the membership feel this way they should call an EGM.

Yeah, the committee should not be blamed obviously but I do question why, when almost every message I have seen here has said that robby was unfairly treated, the committee did not come to the same conclusion and do it's utmost to bring him back and not bring the admins in question for their behavior? In the logs there was mention that robby was also part of the hacking attempt - this is a very serious issue and I am shocked that all it appears to be is suspicions which, imho, are poorly founded.

The important part of that was "every message I have seen here". This thread has so far been filled with replies that remind me of that opening scene in Shrek with the villagers with pitch forks.

I don't recall anybody saying that robby was a part of the hacking attempt. I'm unable to speak for anyone but myself as this is an opinion, but I never thought he was part of it, although I questioned whether or not he knew who did it at times.

Questions about whether he could be trusted were raised primarily because we weren't aware that it was possible to send mail from a ten minute mail address. (I still haven't been shown a site that allows you to send mail).

If there was any evidence, then the admins should have been following up on this - they should have come to the committee and said "This is our evidence, this is our conclusions and our recommendations." CSD should have been brought in and the admins should not try and pretend to be detectives interrogating suspects.

We (the root holders) are still following up on the evidence that we have. We *did* sit down with the committee about it, and CSD were brought into it (although, given the evidence that we do have, there isn't a lot that they can do).

Since this hasn't been done and the logs give such things as "yes, i'm 99% sure he lied to us" it is an honest question on did the admins plant rumours to kick the chairman off the committee? If this turns out to be true, the admins should resign or be kicked off the committee - such tactics have no place on the committee nor should such people have access to the personal data stored on redbrick servers. As you say redbrick would suffer, but I am sorry to say that redbrick would suffer to a greater extent if these actions are excused

This is completely untrue, and frankly I'm a little disgusted that anyone could believe that admins (or root holders on committee) could stoop so low. If that were the case I'd have left the redbrick committee and the society a long time ago.

Meh - the committee must all fully understand an issue before coming to a decision, this takes time but it shouldn't be considered a secret - indeed such discussions, are they not documented and included in the minutes?

Everything said in a formal setting at committee meetings is well document and released, as said in the first post, yes.

Hauk

This is very very messy.

Hauk

Art_Wolf

andrew163 wrote: »

I don't recall anybody saying that robby was a part of the hacking attempt

Well I would consider if he did know who was behind it and did not immediately report them to the committee/admins to be considered part of the hacking *shrugs*

andrew163 wrote: »

Questions about whether he could be trusted were raised primarily because we weren't aware that it was possible to send mail from a ten minute mail address. (I still haven't been shown a site that allows you to send mail).

It took me about 5 mins to send an email. If someone had the ability to hack redbrick I assume they have used such accounts before.

andrew163 wrote: »

We (the root holders) are still following up on the evidence that we have.

If you are still following up an admin should not be coming out and say "I am 99% sure he lied". Something that implicated someone should have gone along the lines of "THIS was the last IP to connect to redbrick before it went down, THIS ip has connected to redbrick X times, THESE users have been connected to redbrick using these ips - we suspect all but THIS user has connected with a ratio of THIS to the other users so they are our prime suspect."

It is not hard evidence at all but it is certainly far stronger then "Omg he deleted an email that would not have helped us what so ever.". Indeed I would not even confront a user with this evidence as it simply proves nothing by itself.

andrew163 wrote: »

This is completely untrue, and frankly I'm a little disgusted that anyone could believe that admins (or root holders on committee) could stoop so low.

When I read 'Like lie to us, about how he got the root password.' then yes - that implies he is involved in the hacking, that he kept quite about it and that he should be kicked off the committee for that reason and strung up in front of CSD and the disciplinary board.

But how can someone say that without giving some form of evidence to back it up? You can send from 10 minute mail. I would not recall 'partner55557804@aravensoft.com'. Is there some more evidence here that even throws doubt on this? He deleted an email - Is that what it comes down to?

andrew163 wrote: »

If that were the case I'd have left the redbrick committee and the society a long time ago.

Good - people and especially the committee need to stand up for what they see. I do not know what went on, I was not there - all I am going off is 20-20 vision and an outside persons perspective

andrew163

(This post is for the purpose of providing an explanation and clarification mostly, I do agree with most of what John has said.)

Art_Wolf wrote: »

It took me about 5 mins to send an email. If someone had the ability to hack redbrick I assume they have used such accounts before.

That's reassuring, but we genuinely did not know it was possible at the time. Therefore, at the time some thought he was lying. Yes, it was an opinion formed based on incorrect information, and therefore was wrong.

If you are still following up an admin should not be coming out and say "I am 99% sure he lied".

Well, at the time, some of us were. See last point

Something that implicated someone should have gone along the lines of "THIS was the last IP to connect to redbrick before it went down, THIS ip has connected to redbrick X times, THESE users have been connected to redbrick using these ips - we suspect all but THIS user has connected with a ratio of THIS to the other users so they are our prime suspect."

It is not hard evidence at all but it is certainly far stronger then "Omg he deleted an email that would not have helped us what so ever.". Indeed I would not even confront a user with this evidence as it simply proves nothing by itself.

I'd love for us to be able to come out with a report on what happened to the members, giving a full list of IPs used, and our firm conclusion as to who did it. Unfortunately we don't have that. What you saw was from a private channel, and it was well known to everybody in there that we weren't sure what had happened, and that what was said was our (biased) personal opinions, and, more importantly, was not part of any descision making process. You've been on the committee before John, you know how religiously the "no decisions or important discussion in the committee IRC channel" is enforced.

When I read 'Like lie to us, about how he got the root password.' then yes - that implies he is involved in the hacking, that he kept quite about it and that he should be kicked off the committee for that reason and strung up in front of CSD and the disciplinary board.

But how can someone say that without giving some form of evidence to back it up? You can send from 10 minute mail. I would not recall 'partner55557804@aravensoft.com'. Is there some more evidence here that even throws doubt on this? He deleted an email - Is that what it comes down to?

Again, we didn't think it was possible to send from a 10 minute mail account, and given the business model and reason for their existence, it seemed unlikely that any such service would offer that capability. Based on that, we (well I did anyway, again it's a matter of opinion so can't speak for others) became unsure of robby's trustworthiness. Apparently we were wrong.

pvt.joker

andrew163 wrote: »

Based on that, we (well I did anyway, again it's a matter of opinion so can't speak for others) became unsure of robby's trustworthiness. Apparently we were wrong.

And how.

So somebody who has done no wrong has been ridiculed, and called every name under the sun (as per the logs) based on ASSUMPTIONS which have turned out to be false.

Hang your (plural) heads in shame.

andrew163

I disagree with the idea that we formed opinions based on assumptions. Opinions were formed based on *facts* that turned out to be untrue. 10minutemail.com and other ones that we checked do not allow the sending of mails (or, at least, not according to their websites). This is a fact. A number of them offer detailed explanations as to why. Therefore it was logical to conclude that no such site offers the ability to send mails.

Also, compared to some of the names I've heard other committee members called by members (some of them have posted on this very thread), both during my time on committee and before that, the treatment robby received was tame.

lithiumoxide

andrew163 wrote: »

Therefore it was logical to conclude that no such site offers the ability to send mails.

That's an assumption, not a fact. They are two very different things.

andrew163 wrote: »

Also, compared to some of the names I've heard other committee members called by members (some of them have posted on this very thread), both during my time on committee and before that, the treatment robby received was tame.

Tbh, there should be no name-calling or personal comments made during this issue. Emotions were (and probably still are) running high, but everybody needs to act calmly and discuss this properly. A slagging match will get us nowhere.

andrew163

A conclusion based on facts isn't a fact?

Anyway, this is a step away from someone going to check a dictionary.

Tbh, there should be no name-calling or personal comments made during this issue. Emotions were (and probably still are) running high, but everybody needs to act calmly and discuss this properly. A slagging match will get us nowhere.

I completely agree.. and although I could write a novel on the number of times I've seen people (members and committee members) get unfairly slagged/flamed to death on redbrick during what were sensitive times for them, by members, (it's really a horrible place sometimes), I regret saying anything in this case. Only one line of that log was from me but I don't wish for any of it to continue.

lithiumoxide

andrew163 wrote: »

A conclusion based on facts isn't a fact?

Nope, it's a logical conclusion based on a series of facts

But enough of that!

andrew163 wrote: »

I completely agree.. and although I could write a novel on the number of times I've seen people (members and committee members) get unfairly slagged/flamed to death on redbrick during what were sensitive times for them, by members, (it's really a horrible place sometimes), I regret saying anything in this case. Only one line of that log was from me but I don't wish for any of it to continue.

Aye I've seen it too. IRC is often not a nice place if you can't really take it. And if you happen to be an admin you'll always get blamed by someone for anything that goes wrong, regardless if it was the fault of the admin(s) or not.

tinkerbell

I'm in shock reading all this! I joined RB in 2001 (I think ,or was it 2000, I'm generation 7 anyway on it) and finished my degree in 2005. I'm still a member and log in every now and then to see if any of my friends are on RB but each time I log in there's only a handful of people on it. It seems to have completely changed in the last 3 years since I finished up in DCU. Everybody in the labs on RB the whole time, I used to leave mine on permanently in res, the users respected the committee, most people got along and everybody knew each other and it was a great society to be apart of. I loved being a part of RB, I almost ran for helpdesk and admin in 2nd & 3rd yr but then decided not to as my college workload got a little crazy.

It seems to be totally different now, don't really see many people on RB these days and then the committee is bickering away and the chair has to resign. I feel like an old woman when I say this but none of this would've happened back in my day!

Art_Wolf

andrew163 wrote: »

You've been on the committee before John, you know how religiously the "no decisions or important discussion in the committee IRC channel" is enforced.

Touche

On only a related note - will an EGM be called during the summer?

tnkrbell

Art_Wolf wrote: »

Touche

On only a related note - will an EGM be called during the summer?

Also who is acting chair at the moment?

"In my opinion, yes, robby was a fairly bad chair in the short time he was around "
I think this is a really unfair comment to make with regard to robby and being chair. (I can't remember who said it)

Also to all of you who are assuming things never assume anything!It makes an ass out of you and me!

lil_cain

tnkrbell wrote: »

Also who is acting chair at the moment?

"In my opinion, yes, robby was a fairly bad chair in the short time he was around "
I think this is a really unfair comment to make with regard to robby and being chair. (I can't remember who said it)

Also to all of you who are assuming things never assume anything!It makes an ass out of you and me!

Dano is as secretary.

And We don't know whether we'll be holding an EGM during the summer yet. We're hoping to have a committee meeting to decide that in the near future.

Suaimhneach

Dont have one during the summer lads, bad move. It's mega hard to get quorum even during semester let alone when there are almost no members around.

I think Dano will do a good job until there is an EGM, and maybe, just maybe you guys could ask Robby to come back and reconsider his resignation, though I doubt there is much chance of him coming back after all this.

I wonder what the formal procedure is to demand that the whole committee has to be re-elected...? This is not me having a go at cmte, but based on the events it might be heathier for Redbrick members to see this happening and to create a sense of a fresh start.

a.nonymus

I wasn't going to post to this thread but after reading the below along with some other posts, I felt the need to do so.

andrew163 wrote: »

In my opinion, yes, robby was a fairly bad chair in the short time he was around

andrew163 wrote: »

In my opinion Cian and Andrew are very technically capable, and redbrick would suffer a loss if they were to resign.

andrew163 wrote: »

Regarding people saying that to many secrets are kept.. This is a problem alright. The email was an attempt to open this whole thing up, as we were extremely uncomfortable with not having told anyone about it yet.

I find these comments quite amusing. Your opinion is Robby was a fairly bad chair and that the admins are very technically capable and should not resign. The same admins who left a world readable dump of the full LDAP database in a world accessible /root directory for a prolonged period of time and then swept the issue under the carpet without notifying Redbrick members after they had been informed of this "issue".

So Robby was a fairly bad chair because he didn't organize a meeting or send a text message, yet these "very technically capable" people who keep users in the dark about sensitive information leaks caused by basic mistakes that they are responsible for are doing a great job and would cause Redbrick to suffer if they resign......

I fail to understand that logic.

rugbug86

a.nonymus wrote: »

The same admins who left a world readable dump of the full LDAP database in a world accessible /root directory for a prolonged period of time and then swept the issue under the carpet without notifying Redbrick members after they had been informed of this "issue".

So just a random DCU person, what exactly was contained in the file? Are we talking all DCU students or just redbrick members? Were username/password combinations included? Who could access them?

Oh and after reading this thread I genuinely feel for Robby. I know first hand how much committee politics suck and it's not a nice position to be in.