We expend time and effort ensuring central services (CIT) and services co-managed by A&S IT end up helping us, and don't actually hurt us.
August 2018: Screen lock "force"
Monday, July 30, 2018 2:41 PM: A&S IT sent a message about a scheduled change for August 8th that they created, and had nothing to do with CIT.
This is the first time a change was going to be forced simply because a computer had software for us to report back its state.
Although this change was consequential, it was going to happen without the usual technical due-diligence to ensure:
- It did what it was expected to do.
- It did not do what it was not expected to.
Although this change was consequential, it was going to happen with the usual "governance" and deliberation to ensure:
- The extent of the problem the change was meant to address.
- The measure by which the expected change to the systems occurred.
Oliver take
Question
- Was action taken out of ignorance (didn't understand meaning of action, nor it's consequences), irresponsibility (knew potential to harm trust and compromise fidelity of infrastructure but went ahead anyway), or some other reason?
IT professionals should keep some things in mind
Mass-affect technology must be respected.
- Take care what you do for one computer. Take super-deep care what you do for hundreds of computers.
Enable us to use our technology to serve our users by letting us do things for them. Not do things to them.
Enable us to use our technology to better see what we have to see what must change and prioritize areas of concern.
Don't be compelled to use only the tools you have if they don't get you the desired state.
- Be willing to walk away from unacceptable results, regardless of the pressures.
When existing, proven, active technical vetting processes exist, use them or be clear you did not and why.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
- As a corollary, just because a tool appears to do something doesn't mean it does what you hope it will. Especially if you don't ask the right questions when testing it.
Action was presumptive. The change had not followed expected process to reduce chance of technical error and what the change led to the desired outcomes.
Action was arrogant and paternalistic. The change came across as "we know what is good for you and this is good for you; we know better than you. Accept it."
In this case, at least on the Mac side, this approach led to an irresponsible "force". The decision-makers seemed to be disregarding the risks associated with using a powerful tool in a new way which was clearly not technically well understood. ((a configuration change, not a software package deployment)
Oliver's poem inspired by this announcement, August 2, 2018
Watch the do-do
See, before you DO.
Don't DO unless you do due process.
See what you DID.
If you do not do this, you will likely step in DO-DO.
And that stinks for everyone.