Work colleagues

[NotThePars]

38 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

The phone is quite a rude invention, when you think about it. A little machine that goes TALK TO ME TALK TO ME TALK TO ME and won't shut up until you answer it. In a world of computers and working from home there's no need for that when you can pop up a little message somewhere asking "I need to talk to you if you have time"

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

14 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

If you're suggesting I've stolen material from that c**t I'll not have it

It was from an episode of QI

[Shandon Par]

It’s nice not having colleagues any more. The ringtone on my phone is the old Nokia tune so I can pretend I don’t even have a smart phone.

[GordonD]

3 hours ago, Eednud said:

Pan fydd gwylanod yn dilyn y treilliwr mae hyn oherwydd eu bod yn credu y bydd sardinau yn cael eu taflu i'r môr

Rhowch gic karate iddo yn ei wyneb.

[DA Baracus]

Certain files need to be sent to individual people for a meeting.

 

There were some issues with Sharepoint before around access that came about because the person who set the permissions was not an owner of the Sharepoint site, meaning that the permissions they thought they had set were in fact not actioned by Sharepoint.

 

I have said that until this (pretty simple) problem is sorted (by simply making the person an owner of the Sharepoint site) then we should just send the files via email.

 

However, the response is that this isn’t secure, so they* will instead create an individual Sharepoint site for each person with their individual files, then EMAIL the link to them.

 

I have said that this is dumb. I have noted that Office 365 uses the same fucking password for all applications, so if some hacker, and they seem to think there are loads of them lining up to intercept every single email, was able to get someone’s email log in details, they would also have their Sharepoint log in details BECAUSE THEY ARE THE FUCKING SAME! In addition, they are sending the link to the Sharepoint site BY EMAIL ANYWAY, and Sharepoint either sets the link to work for anyone who has it or work for only the person it is addressed to, which goes back to the credentials being the fucking same anyway! It totally defeats the purpose of Sharepoint as well, as it was designed to stop shit like this happening.

 

People who don’t understand technology and who insist upon stupid workarounds that create more work, and who fail to listen to reason, need to pipe down.

 

 

*This means I have to do it, despite the detailed explanation of why it is pointless

[sugna]

29 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

I have said that until this (pretty simple) problem is sorted (by simply making the person an owner of the Sharepoint site) then we should just send the files via email.

Good point.

29 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

People who don’t understand technology and who insist upon stupid workarounds that create more work, and who fail to listen to reason, need to pipe down.

Good point.

[DA Baracus]

1 hour ago, sugna said:

Good point.

Good point.

Yes, emailing them is more work but they are being daft reactive fuds.

It would be easy to use the existing Sharepoint that the committee members have access to, and just give the people attending the meeting (separate meetings but same committee members for each) access only to the individual folder that contains their files. As noted before, an unexpected issue arose before where a person with access to a Sharepoint site (a member of the site) gave specific permissions to specific people for individual folders. Turns out this didn't work and everyone could see everyone else's folder. The issue was that only owners can set permissions on a site.

So the easy thing to do would be just make the admin guy, who uploads everything to the site and maintains it anyway, an owner.

But they 'aren't sure' and 'don't want to take any risks' until they hear back from IT, which could be weeks. I've pointed out that it is very easily tested by simply giving a colleague access and seeing if they can only see the one folder.

So unfortunately it has to be email or individual sites for now. Email is quicker as the files only need to Zipped and attached. Creating each individual site, uploading the relevant files then sending an email with the link takes longer.

[Guest bernardblack]

People at my work actually pretended to be busy today. 
“oh I can’t believe the amount of stuff that’s come in on Easter Monday”

I had one email to deal with 

[Hillonearth]

48 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Yes, emailing them is more work but they are being daft reactive fuds.

It would be easy to use the existing Sharepoint that the committee members have access to, and just give the people attending the meeting (separate meetings but same committee members for each) access only to the individual folder that contains their files. As noted before, an unexpected issue arose before where a person with access to a Sharepoint site (a member of the site) gave specific permissions to specific people for individual folders. Turns out this didn't work and everyone could see everyone else's folder. The issue was that only owners can set permissions on a site.

So the easy thing to do would be just make the admin guy, who uploads everything to the site and maintains it anyway, an owner.

But they 'aren't sure' and 'don't want to take any risks' until they hear back from IT, which could be weeks. I've pointed out that it is very easily tested by simply giving a colleague access and seeing if they can only see the one folder.

So unfortunately it has to be email or individual sites for now. Email is quicker as the files only need to Zipped and attached. Creating each individual site, uploading the relevant files then sending an email with the link takes longer.

Ah, Sharepoint permissioning You've always got the head of one section that thinks they work in Area fucking 51, and wants it tied down ridiculously tightly....we'd sat down a few sections that were adopting it and strongly recommended they just use flat access all the way through unless there was a really good reason not to. Wumman in charge looked at us as if we were insane and maintained nobody outside her section should have access as everything was "highly confidential"

Fair play. Until the first day they actually started using it and she had a meltdown because nobody could see a link she'd sent out to half the building.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Hillonearth

[DA Baracus]

9 minutes ago, Hillonearth said:

Ah, Sharepoint permissioning You've always got the head of one section that thinks they work in Area fucking 51, and wants it tied down ridiculously tightly....we'd sat down a few sections that were adopting it and strongly recommended they just use flat access all the way through unless there was a really good reason not to. Wumman in charge looked at us as if we were insane and maintained nobody outside her section should have access as everything was "highly condfidential"

Fair play. Until the first day they actually started using it and she had a meltdown because nobody could see a link she'd sent out to half the building.

In my experience the ones who go on about access the most are the ones who least understand it and, worse, are a bit stupid about it and don't 'trust' the (very easy to do tests), instead waiting until an 'expert' from IT tells them something, somehow not realising that said IT expert probably just does the easy test. Institutions haven't been given training materials on Sharepoint because Microsoft doesn't have any that are sent out; instead it's all on their site. The IT help area regarding Sharepoint on the website of the company I work for just directs you to Microsoft's site about it.

 

Incidentally, I've sent many thousands of emails in my time there. The number that have been intercepted or 'hacked' or caused any sort of data protection issue is still zero. These hackers must be shite.

Edited April 5, 2021 by DA Baracus

[Stellaboz]

Instead of that you c***s should maybe occasionally answer a phone, and when you do not read of a fucking script.
Oh and stop the fake Indian accent.

Thank you, come again!

[Busta Nut]

On 05/04/2021 at 19:21, DA Baracus said:

Incidentally, I've sent many thousands of emails in my time there. The number that have been intercepted or 'hacked' or caused any sort of data protection issue is still zero. These hackers must be shite.

This. My work have a wee daft system where things are labelled, Public, Confidential, Highly Confidential I think are some of the options. I mark everything highly confidential as it makes literally fuckall difference 

[DA Baracus]

1 minute ago, Busta Nut said:

This. My work have a wee daft system where things are labelled, Public, Confidential, Highly Confidential I think are some of the options. I mark everything highly confidential as it makes literally fuckall difference 

I doubt any 'hackers' would give a shit about mundane Word documents or crushingly dull Excel files.

If they ever do 'hack' an email account it will be for sending dodgy links, not for trying to get absolutely irrelevant and useless data.

[The Moonster]

Just now, Pato said:

What are folk's best strategies for getting out of attending meetings?

I generally ask the person who set it up if I'm required at the meeting, if they say yes I ask them why I'm required (unless it's blatantly obvious). I've found that generally whilst people want as many people as possible to attend meetings, they generally don't have any justification for demanding your attendance. I just say I'm busy and ask for a copy of the minutes to be passed to me.

 

Failing that, throw yourself down the stairs and go for medical treatment instead. 

[thistledo]

22 minutes ago, Pato said:

What are folk's best strategies for getting out of attending meetings?

Book in "Focus time" or "[Insert project name] time" It's mental, but my old team had to do this to avoid basically attending meetings all day. I've since stolen it in my current contract as they love a meeting packed day, f**k knows how they get any actual work done, talk about doing work a lot though. 

I've had to resort to private meeting a lunch hour every day because c***s can't seem to comprehend the basic human need to eat/drink. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by thistledo

[TheScarf]

7 minutes ago, thistledo said:

Book in "Focus time" or "[Insert project name] time" It's mental, but my old team had to do this to avoid basically attending meetings all day. I've since stolen it in my current contract as they love a meeting packed day, f**k knows how they get any actual work done, talk about doing work a lot though. 

I've had to resort to private meeting a lunch hour every day because c***s can't seem to comprehend the basic human need to eat/drink. 

You don't work for a council by any chance?  

The lunchtime bit seems familiar too.  Aye no bother shall I just not have any lunch today then?

Edited April 7, 2021 by TheScarf

[The Moonster]

6 minutes ago, Pato said:

Yeah I think I need to push for specific reasons someone wants me to attend. I have always been one of those folk that gets invited to stuff just because organisers vaguely think it'd be good for me to be there without there being an identified thing I'm expected to contribute to, or benefit from, attendance. It's getting out of hand. I'm in a meeting just now, camera off, microphone off, shitposting on P&B because I have literally zero things to say.

Aye, get those meetings in the bin. Ask for minutes to be passed on then file them straight in the bin. 

[strichener]

2 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

I doubt any 'hackers' would give a shit about mundane Word documents or crushingly dull Excel files.

If they ever do 'hack' an email account it will be for sending dodgy links, not for trying to get absolutely irrelevant and useless data.

I'll pass your expertise onto SEPA and their employees.

[DA Baracus]

18 minutes ago, strichener said:

I'll pass your expertise onto SEPA and their employees.

What is SEPA?

[strichener]

Just now, DA Baracus said:

What is SEPA?

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency who suffered a ransomware attack and had their "mundane Word documents or crushingly dull Excel files" stolen and then published on the dark web when they wouldn't pay the ransom.  These documents contained personal data of current and former employees.