You are touching a very system administrator sensitive subject.

We several different shops in our company, all wanting to keep the others
out of their "stuff".  I made the decision to allow the groups to keep the
root and console authority within there group.  I will install the client,
help them configure it the way they want, and provide brief training on the
software.  But, they are 100% responsible for their backups.  They must
watch the sched and error logs, to see what is and is not being backed up.
They must make sure that the scheduler is running daily.  And I charge by
the hour for my services.  This way, if they don't want me on their systems,
it is their job to do my job.  We have had some instances where they claim
ignorance when something goes wrong, but that is what they agreed to, so I
am sorry.  The main thing is GET IT IN WRITING.  Coming up with a Service
Level Agreement is worth its weight in gold.

Anthony Jones
ADSM Administrator
Koch Industries, Inc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gail A Johnson [SMTP:Johnson.GailA AT AMSTR DOT COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 5:50 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Authority Questions...
>
> My manager has asked me to find out how other companies are doing the
> following regarding authority on either NETWARE/NT or UNIX:
>
> 1)  What type of Authority do you give your ADSM Administrator in these
> environments (root, console?)
>
>
> 2)  Does the ADSM adsministrator in your shop install the client code or
> does
> someone else install?
>
> We are trying to make a case that the ADSM ADMIN should have root and
> console
> authority in order to do the 'whole job' --
> I am curious as to how others approach this type of issue......
>
>
>
> ...gaj