Causing Damage on the way out the door

[dgillz]

Check out thread766-523566. Maybe there is a SQL expert that can help this guy/gal? Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Exact Macola, eSynergy, and Crystal Reports

http://www.trianglepartners.com

dgilsdorf@trianglepartners.com

 

[butchrecon]

I cant help the guy out with his SQL issue. However I do have a comment. The individual leaving is being VERY unprofessional. You should never do anything to a company as your leaving that could damage the normal operations of the company. If it is intentional then he is just cutting his own throat in the job market. Sooner or later a prospective employer will find out. That could hurt raises, benefits, and interpersonal relationships. James Collins
Hardware Engineer
A+ Certified Professional
Network+ Certified Professional
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft Certified System Administrator
(What does all that jargon below my name mean? I dont know I am still trying to figure it out!)

 

[manarth]

I'm not sure (after reading the thread) that the damage was deliberate - it sounds like the guy transferred ownership of a bunch of procedures - possibly to allow his profile to be deleted. So ethically OK.

It sounds like a technical problem, in that previous reports referenced his procedures using HIM as the owner; of course he no longer is, he's passed ownership on. Now the reports have to be updated to reference the new owner.

Of course, I could be completely misreading this - Crystal Reporting isn't in my job description! <marc>[ul]help us help![li]please give us feedback on what works / doesn't[/li][li]not sure where to start? click here: faq581-3339[/li][/sup][/ul][/sup]

 

[carrr]

I'm totally jumping on the spin control bandwagon with manarth. In a previous life, I was a SQL Server 2k dba, not too far removed from Crystal technology...

This guy wasn't sabotaging anything, is my take. &quot;dbo&quot; is a default &quot;database owner&quot; indicator. He/she was, as manarth suggested, simply trying to relinquish ownership on his/her way out the door, not intentionally cause damage. He/she simply a) didn't remove ownership throughly enough, or b) didn't leave the job up to the dba, which substantiates butchrecon's point about not meddling. If you don't know what you're doing, or only know how to go about it half-&%^ed, keep out of it.

But, about the Crystal Forum thread, either: the one posting the thread is a busy-body who really should leave such concerns up to the dba in the situation, or, is a dba who maybe needs to go back to class to learn how to strip/reassign ownership (in SQL Server, it was a stored proc like &quot;sp_changeobjectowner&quot; or something of that ilk....yadayadayada....like I said, &quot;in a previous life&quot

Anyway, I rant to appease myself....it's Friday....

cheers....

 

[xutopia]

this is kinda funny! LOL

This is the reason why we should encourage hackers to find solutions for our every day problems! Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
==========================

 

[chiph]

Speaking as someone who has been laid-off in the past (something that probably everyone has had experience with by now!), when my manager was giving me the bad news, the IT staff were busily revoking my network access.

There's a fine line between &quot;sorry to have to let you go&quot; and having a guard walk you out with a &quot;we'll mail you your stuff next week along with your check&quot;. My previous employer handled it as well as anyone, I think (it's OK, he got his later that year!).

In this case, the company should have protected themselves better, even though it sounds like the guy was just trying to help. But also... in the first case, they shouldn't have ever put anything into production that was running under a person's user ID... they should have set up a ID for this service.

Chip H.

 

[drdebit]

I think the change activity can also be a protection for the person leaving. Some companies are not careful about changing codes, accesses, etc. and to my mind that has the potential of leaving the departed employee open to blame for things he/she really didn't do.

(Chip I had a day like that once - I had more than could be mailed so I got to come back in Saturday (so i didn't upset the troops) to clean out my office. The day did have redeeming merit though - I ate at a different McDonalds and completed a Dinosaur set.)

 

[flstffatboy]

I don't think this user did anything intentional. The objects should have been created originally owned by dbo to prevent problems like this from happeneing in the first place. You can find this in any SQL Server reference manual.

FLSTF

 

[sleipnir214]

Judging from the post, I'd say that by allowing this guy to leave, the company is losing 90% of its skill base. Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[palbano]

chiph said
In this case, the company should have protected themselves better

Exactly correct! A company should have documented procedures for employee exit processes. That way there is no confusion about what should or should not be done.

-pete

 

[chiph]

The day did have redeeming merit though - I ate at a different McDonalds and completed a Dinosaur set.

Sometimes it's the small victories.

Chip H.

 

[butchrecon]

After rereading the original post I agree with manarth. I dont think he was attempting damage be done.

James Collins
Hardware Engineer
A+ Certified Professional
Network+ Certified Professional
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft Certified System Administrator
(What does all that jargon below my name mean? I dont know I am still trying to figure it out!)