What can be done to separate the tech and account stuff more?

Nothing. That's HR's setup issue. No -- I think the production DB has a separate ID/password.

What can be done to give more people with skilz access to the ticket list, test site, and code?

Ticket list -- nothing, as above. Test site and code ... really if people want to READ, I can hand out the user ID and password like candy. It's what I was going to do after we have code control in place, anyway. But really, really, until we have a system, there's no room for experimentation or development by more than one person at a time.

And we'll get a system once we're off HR, because it's their issue, yes?

Is there any administrative planning we can do for this in advance? I know there's a so-far-unused devlist -- perhaps that would be the place to do any such planning work...

For admin planning you mean setting up code control? I think we should do that here -- folks who haven't volunteered to code (and are therefore not going to want to be on the list) may have good ideas.

But, at the moment, Paul is code control until bitterchick gets a yay or a nay on her system.

Code control, creating a process or a project plan, anything like that that needs doing, I meant.

And, just cause you didn't mention it and I want to make sure I understand everything (I've got a headcold and am a bit off my game), we'll be able to move to a group coding methodology once we're off HR?

we'll be able to move to a group coding methodology once we're off HR?

It's not the group coding that's the HR-prevented issue. It's the group being able to update production (which is fair -- needs to be a choke point there), and the group being able to submit trouble tickets or do techy sysadmin stuff.

The reason we have no group coding controls in place is a lack of a CVS system (Karl seems to be too swamped to pop his head up, poor guy, but he was the resident expert who had a running system).

Thanks; gotcha.

OK, Karl can't do it, and msbelle, who offered weeks ago to research the issue, is not available. Why not just use sourceforge.net, then?

msbelle, who offered weeks ago to research the issue, is not available

I don't think she has the tech resources to do it.

Sourceforge requires you be an open source project, and going down that road would need a whole lot more discussion. Personally, I don't want to be open source.

But the fact was that she offered to go out and do the research. It wouldn't take tech know-how to be told "find out about X, Y, and Z, and report back." And given that we have more enthusiasts than experts, we should probably allow and encourage people to do things like that, rather than having people offer to do work and not take them up on it.

The open-source question is for another day, I guess: my gut instinct is that it'd be nice to let other people not have to reinvent the wheel if they're ever in our pre-Phoenix shoes, but I'll admit I haven't thought the matter through at all.

What research needed to be done? I think I'm confused, then.

Requirements gathering -- happening here. The other step is to volunteer to code, or to code control, neither of which she was going to do, if I interpret correctly.

To actually find a place to host the CVS repository and get it up and running, which it was my understanding was what was lacking.