|
Dan Neely wrote: I want nothing to do with their systems now
That's why I was suggesting this. If you can't access the system, you can't be blamed for anything bad that might happen to it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd need to access their system to change my password, and in terms of being able prove I can't login nothing would change. Currently it's only my word that I don't remember the additional password to go from my MS account to their azure; after going in and doing a reset to a new password it'd only be my word that I didn't record whatever I changed it to.
If I could go in and remove myself from their system entirely that would be something else; but the message from Microsoft implies that I can't do it.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
If they changed the password themselves they wouldn't be able to place anything nefarious that happened subsequently on you. IMO, that's the best you can hope for - let them take ownership of the account so you can wash your hands of it. That's all I'm saying. I'd hate to be in that situation.
|
|
|
|
|
MS says they can't do anything, Company X can't be bothered to do anything.
Edit: And because the company X azure is tied to my employer MS account my employer can't do anything until such time as I stop working for them.
I'll admit a degree of curiosity if when that happens I'll disappear from X's azure entirely, or if MS will keep trying to send emails to an account that was deleted from their systems...
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: I'll admit a degree of curiosity if when that happens I'll disappear from X's azure entirely, or if MS will keep trying to send emails to an account that was deleted from their systems...
Depends on a lot of things.
If the account continues to exist in Azure AD but is marked as inactive, the system should start generating errors whenever someone tries to send an email to the associated mailbox. When happens next is anybody's guess. 
|
|
|
|
|
No Azure AD. We were going to but then some bean counter realized it'd cost money and vetoed it. 
Just whatever is needed for office/msdn/etc access.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
I had the same problem and it blocked me from using my from using teams. I was able to contact the old company and they did remove me.
But, I think it is Microsoft responsibility to manage this. Microsoft owns azure and they charge a pretty penny to 'use' it. The accounts are for Microsoft security and ability to bill you.
That being said, there needs to be a way I can remove my account from being tied to something I don't want/need/can't use or have.
This is the state of the cloud. Always using someone else' property. Cheaper up front probably. I'd guess not in the long term.
Jack of all trades, master of none, though often times better than master of one.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect resetting the PWD is not all that hard. It's likely that a reset email will be sent to your listed email address, and clicking a link will take you to the reset page. This is good in general, but not good in your situation.
The danger to you is that if anyone does anything to their materials, you can be a suspect as you have access. Sure, you'll be cleared, but it's a hassle you don't need.
One idea is to identify the old manager's boss, get his/her number, and call. Recommend that they check ALL accounts, as it's highly likely that others have access where they shouldn't. If you haven't, preserve copies of all emails sent to prove you're trying to do the right thing.
If that doesn't get results, start forwarding the Azure emails back to the company with a note at the top that your access needs to be revoked.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a very small company, the person who's ignoring my emails is the owner/ceo/etc. There's no one over him I can talk to. I also CCed the one developer there whose email I had; but either he left, is equally clueless as to why my having access is a problem, or can't convince his boss to do anything either.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: It's a very small company, the person who's ignoring my emails is the owner/ceo/etc.
Reset your PWD, login, delete all files, and add a text file containing, "told ya that ya should have removed me!"? 
Nope, don't do that (not that I figure you will) -- it makes for a good joke, but is a truly bad idea.
Given the situation, I see 2 choices: 1) Ignore it. The likelihood of anything bad happening via your account is low. 2) Send him a registered letter requesting that he revoke your access, and that his failure to do so may compromise his systems, and that you are not responsible for his inaction. That may scare him enough to get off his butt and fix it.
In either case, preserve your evidence of trying to do the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
BryanFazekas wrote: Reset your PWD, login, delete all files, and add a text file containing, "told ya that ya should have removed me!"?
Nope, don't do that (not that I figure you will) -- it makes for a good joke, but is a truly bad idea.
Not even doing the first part. Going from my base Me @ My Company Microsoft account to the linked Me @ Company X azure account in the hope of finding a way to reset that password to line noise or do a self service disconnect is a line I don't feel comfortable crossing. Especially since the MS support person said the only person who could do anything is Owner @ Company X. If they'd said they couldn't do it themselves because reasons, but provided a how-to guide to remove myself I would (after clearing it with my boss) email X saying I was going to follow MS provided instructions to remove myself unless you do it first.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
(I'm going to get to a point using the following as a concrete example, but it's not the central subject)
I moderate comments for a small website that recently experienced growing pains due to an influx of people from a major American political website that shut down their comments section.
The owner and I don't always see eye to eye on what constitutes "toxicity" and it's difficult because I try to respect his website and do things his way, but today I applied a ban on someone I thought wasn't even an edge case, and the owner balked. Isn't the first time it's happened. The commenters appreciate it in every case, but the owner is more lenient than the commentariat is in some ways in terms of what he thinks is toxic. And it's doubly hard because being kind of a close knit warm community before, there was infighting sometimes, but people had boundaries, and those aren't there anymore, so I don't have a metric.
I do it to try to serve the community, but lately I think I want to step down. I don't like banning people, and I don't like upsetting the site owner. I'd rather just observe. Maybe I'll just donate more money instead. 
Now, to my point:
I always feel like having authority just paints a target on my back. That's why I didn't like my career trajectory when I was doing the more traditional software development. I don't like being in charge of others. I struggle with hierarchies in general, preferring directed graphs.  I even eyed dev lead positions with suspicion. When I discovered being an architect meant also managing people in practice I was done. I was done with the field. I got out for years. I even worked at a gas station, just to be free of the BS. (Actually, that was first job I've ever gotten a paid vacation they *allowed me to take*). That is how averse I am to the whole thing. Now I am the lone person. I have no team, and I prefer it that way, because with my experience, I always end up leading any given team, and you can keep it.
I am probably not alone in terms of hating hierarchies of people. I get the feeling a lot of developers don't like people politics, and everything that goes with it.
My hubby really likes the idea of being in charge of others - he jokes about if he ran the world. I'm over here like "who needs the responsibility?"
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I have never been good at managing other people. My one experience taught me that it is one of the many skills I do not possess. Fortunately there are other people who are good at it which means I am free to do the thing(s) that I could (just about) do to earn a living.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes to this. I tend to appreciate good management a lot. Now I just wish there was a way I could be free to set the design trajectory of an application (aka being an software architect, essentially) without the people management part. Like, I need an assistant to deal with the hooomans.
I guess, when it comes to something strictly technical, I don't mind leading. I don't mind mentoring, in fact, that can be rewarding, especially when people have taken the skills I've imbued them with and gone on to be successful with them.
But it's not the same thing. I just feel like as necessary as hierarchies are due to (I think) the primitive mechanics of being a social animal, I much prefer horizontal arrangements.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I was fortunate in that I had exactly the kind of role you described. Setting the design trajectory without having to manage people.
During the time that managing was part of my role, I wasn't good at it. To work for me was usually to be ignored unless you initiated a dialog. That was great for competent self-starters, but that's not everyone. Fortunately, a technical career path got formalized.
No more managing for me. No more time on hiring, buns on seats (do we have a cubicle, account, workstation...for this new hire arriving next week?), project or product management, performance reviews, or dealing with personal issues. Sure, I had to be involved in those things sometimes, but they weren't my responsibility. Being able to focus on where I could add the most value was a godsend.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how you managed to avoid it. Maybe it's because I spent so much time as a contractor. Headhunters only called me for more and more senior positions, and those positions eventually all included managing people.
I couldn't even get work as a straight software dev. I had too much experience. I would have to have lied about that.
They basically were trying to force it on me, no matter what agency I went through or who I was going to work for. It was ridiculous. I eventually found I was having a hard time looking for work that I wanted to take, so I got out.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe clueless employers are the norm. To make it work, a larger company needs a formalized technical career path so that it's allowed and becomes part of the culture. Without it, there's an idiotic attitude about pay scales: more senior levels mean managing, and no one at those levels should write code. Small companies aren't nearly as bound stupid rules, so it should be easier there. If you tell recruiters what you're open to, maybe they can bring you the right opportunities.
|
|
|
|
|
It's moot recent years, as being around people causes me to have panic attacks, and I can no longer work full time, meaning traditional employment is off the table. I do have some really satisfying work I've been up to since so in at least one small way it has been a blessing.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Some people lack a sense of proportion. You mentioned "banning". I head no mention of suspension, warning, muzzling, etc.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
He was warned. And there's no muzzling or timeouts in that system.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been a forum moderator where we had a specific area for Religion and Politics. We kept this out of the rest of the forum and only moderated out posts that were blatantly attacking other forum members.
|
|
|
|
|
This website is political in nature, so it attracts a certain sort once the doors are swung wide open. I'm in the political minority on that blog, but I'm not in strict opposition to the dominant political thought there. And yes, there is one, simply because like seeks like and also the OPs tend to set a tone.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
The question I'd be posing myself is, how much would it matter to me if I stopped moderating and as a result, discussions turned into...well, something else?
I can only speak for myself, but I think life is too short to try to keep people on a leash as far as public forums go. If others want to dedicate their time/sanity to this sort of task - let them.
Do you owe the site owner anything? If not, just tell him you can no longer afford the time that moderation requires from you (that can't be hard to justify - even if you had to justify it, which you probably don't).
I think of myself as a relatively laid back individual, but I can't picture myself trying to moderate a forum. I'd take things personally and would get stressed out in very short order. Not for me, TYVM
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a long time all I did was read the posts in the lounge.
Learned so much.
This is due to excellent moderation and contributors.
Lately, I have decided to join in the conversation. Again learning.
Good job, all.
My 2 cents
As to moderating forums, it is more or less a requirement to provide order for the sake of the readers.
As to people management, it is more of less a requirement to provide order for the sake of the people being managed.
My 20+ years of experience in software development, management, etc.
1. listen, listen, listen
2. keep scaling appropriate, i.e. manage growth.
3. keep the people visible, the team in the background.
4. no pointing fingers, offer help, corrections, etc. but no blame.
5. stress professionalism, because our work will be depended upon by others outside the team and will reflect on us somewhere down the line.
6. cut people slack when they need it for health and family.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
