Justin du Coeur (jducoeur) wrote,
Justin du Coeur
jducoeur

Just when I thought I couldn't get crosser at the Board...

I just read yesterday's update from the Board of Directors about the ACCEPS mess. It actually makes me even crankier with them than I was before.

Mind, I don't think they're lying or anything. They should damned well be providing some documentation for the allegations, but the idea that ACCEPS' security is weak is totally unsurprising -- the system is *ancient*, and should have been replaced 5-8 years ago. It was a fine service for its day, but it is pretty obviously way behind the times now.

But let's be clear: SCA Corporate is at *least* an equal partner in this mess. It isn't as if the folks behind ACCEPS went and begged everyone to use their system. It became the de facto standard because for *years* now, despite an increasing clamor across the SCA for decently modern, up-to-date alternatives, Corporate has stuck its fingers in its ears, as it tends to do, and gone "la-la-la-we-can't-hear-you-why-aren't-you-happy-just-using-ACCEPS". They essentially pushed the Society to use ACCEPS. And the upshot of the current announcement is that they probably did so without any sort of proper oversight, because I find it unlikely that this security problem -- that is deadly enough to demand not just an immediate cessation of use but threats of force against any officers who use it -- just happened. Rather, the implication is that Corporate has been effectively pushing everyone to use a system that they weren't paying attention to. Who, exactly, is at fault here?

I wouldn't be nearly so cross about all of this if it wasn't for the latest letter, which manages to be simultaneously incredibly defensive and offensive. There is no thanks for the people who have done the Society a lot of service for a lot of years. There is none of the sense of sorry loss that any competent manager would consider basic decency when letting somebody go. Instead, there is simply desperate blame-shifting. Yes, I get it -- you felt that, having found out that there has probably been a weakness in the system *for a decade now*, you felt you had to do something about it. But this suddenly? That rudely?

The issue here isn't whether ACCEPS needed to go. Like I said, I've been arguing for at least 5 years that it was outdated and needed replacement. But this sort of panicked management-by-crisis is incompetent, cruel, and in a club run by volunteers, deeply unwise. I'm disappointed.
Tags: sca politics
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 18 comments