Hi! I (John Johnson, or "JJ") am the current "System Coordinator". This position--originally titled "Executive Coordinator"--was created by Operations and our Executive Director in December, 2000, and subsequently endorsed by the Executive Committee, which is authorized by SCN's Board of Directors to run this show.

As System Coordinator I have been granted control of SCN's production computer systems for the purpose of coordinating system administration. I also been granted freedom to define the scope of this position as may be necessary to ensure its effectiveness; the check on any excesses is that I serve at the pleasure of the Executive Director and the Operations Coordinator.

This position was created because of Ops' frustration in getting anything done. SCN's computer systems were initially set up by a small group of technically expert and motivated people with largely shared views on what should be done and how to do it. An informal, collegial approach to coordination sufficed; short-comings in practice were not yet evident.

However, growth of the organization, and Ops particularly, has resulted in greater diversity in flavors and levels of skill and experience, and consequently in points of view of what should be done, and how. This has made it extremely difficult to obtain consensus, even on purely technical matters. As a result, much of SCN's subsequent development has been done by individuals working alone ("cowboys", or "Lone Rangers"), with a lack of coordination that has created conflict, a lack of overview that has lead to some very questionable work, and a lack of documentation (and communication in general) that has made it increasingly difficult to understand why things have been done and how to change them or add new things. This has been just as frustrating within Operations as it has been without. (A history of SCN would be incomplete without details here; perhaps some of them will be documented someday.)

So we appointed someone to coordinate system administration. Someone who could arbitrarily terminate any wrangling, and make decisions when decisions need to be made. (One of my favorite authors, Larry Niven, has written: "The mark of a good leader is to make decisions quickly. If they be correct, so much the better." Yes.) Is this dictatorial? Not entirely--I serve at the pleasure of the Operations Coordinator. Are there any "better" solutions to the coordination problem that rely on more "democratic" methods? Theoretically yes, but the essence of the crisis we face is effectiveness, and "better" solutions have failed to develop.

Does this arrangement prevent meeting user demand for adding innovative services on SCN? No. It does stop the old laissez faire practice where software was freely added by anyone who had access to do so without any restrictions or requirements what so ever. But simply adding software is NOT sufficient to enable services; and adding software promiscuously creates problems which eventually impairs adding new services.

Consider that in the first half of 2001 we did not have news services, even though we had two sets of news software installed. (There are interoperability problems.) Consider that we had five different versions of Apache (http server) running, eight or nine versions of Lynx installed, half a dozen different versions of Pine, and various odd "stealth" packages--and no documentation as to what they do or what is going to break if something is changed. Adding software is easy. But making it work with everything else is excessively difficult.

What we in Ops are trying to do is organize the system--starting with the practices by which the system is administered. The role of the System Coordinator is to maintain that organization, which is done by enforcing some kind of discipline, which requires control of what is done. If everyone was perfect, and we all had concurring concepts of what should be done, and how, and actually did it, this might not be necessary. But as things are--it is necessary.

Note that this is not the "Chief System Administrator" position I once advocated. As System Coordinator I coordinate, I even control, but I do not have to actually do what others don't do. I also try to motivate, and, to a small extent, even lead, but I see that as being more in the sphere of the Operations Coordinator. And while I have been jumping in to do a lot of critical system administration, I cannot do it all myself; the other system administrators still need to pull their weight.

And why me? There are several theories, starting with not ducking fast enough to no one else being tough enough. I believe the general view was that I am most likely to be efffective. Even so, it may not be possible to pull this off. Please cooperate; SCN's survival may depend on it.

(As I said at the top: all this is NOT an invitation for debate! I have spent several hours needed elsewhere to put together this explanation. If you feel you really need more information on the problems Operations is trying to handle, please come to an Ops meeting. If you feel you really have to register an objection, come to an Excomm meeting.)