Conference 7.286::maynard

================================================================================
Note 235.0                 RE: note 1.2, notes policy                  2 replies
PAXVAX::RUZICH "Steve Ruzich, VAXELN Development"    47 lines  11-JUL-1990 14:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
This is written in response to note 1.2, "notes policy statement", since
the topic is set /nowrite.  Note 1.2 contains a memo from Ron Glover,
Corporate Personel Policy Manager.

Pete,

I think we need a better idea of what we can talk about than this memo provides.

Mr. Glover is concerned about Digital being liable for defamatory statements in
the notesfiles, for good reason.  It's not fair to slander someone, and
it certainly isn't right to make DEC the target of lawsuits. However, Mr.
Glover does not even acknowledge that there is potential benefit for Digital
employees in a discussion of 'individuals or business entities'.  I think it is
clear that such discussions are important and benficial to us.  I think we need
some balance here. 

Is there any way we can have a useful conversation about, for example,
where to get your car serviced, as note 1.0 suggests we do?
Mr. Glover says we should avoid 'negative comments'.  

If someone posts a note saying "I need an auto machanic - have you
ever been to Joe Jones' Garage?", is there any way to say "yes, and
I have a problem with the service"?  I don't see the liability for DEC
in such a statement.  It is, none the less, a negative comment.

Can I say "Go to Smith's garage - they do a good job"?  It implies
that Smith is better than Jones.  Is that negative?
How about "Call me about Joe Jones."?  How about if I point out that
Smith's garage is closer to the Mill that Jones', so it might be more
convenient to go to Smith's?

Can a marketing notesfile discuss how we might beat IBM on a sale?
That discussion would necessarily be negative.  IBM might not like it.

Heaven forbid that Mr. Glover reads some of the really opinionated
notesfiles, like firearms conferences.

I suppose we could just quietly ignore the memo, and go our own way,
since no one has complained about our notesfile, but I really don't like
that.  It would be like a Boston driver's attitude about traffic laws.

What do you think, Pete?  Does anyone else have any background on this?
The memo looks like a big deal, and a substantial change in policy -
is it really so?

-Steve Ruzich

================================================================================
Note 235.1                 RE: note 1.2, notes policy                     1 of 2
VIRGO::KAHANE                                        28 lines  12-JUL-1990 11:58
                                -< 2 + 2 = 4? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steve, you raise an important issue and you comments are apt.
    
    I agree notesfilers should refrain from malicious and false statements
    but to exclude negative statements seems inappropriate, and the
    implications are ludicrous as your examples suggest.
    
    Ron Glover's argument against negative statements is tied to
    "fundamental fairness". Specifically, he states, " It is simply not
    fair for an employee to make a negative comment when we don't provide
    those businesses an opportunity to respond..."
    
    Nevertheless, a conception of "fundamental fairness" isn't primarily
    about providing opportunities to respond. To use an extreme example, I
    have a lot of negative things to say about Adolph Hitler. Is what I say
    unfair because he can't respond?
    
    Fundamental fairness seems to be about treating people (and businesses)
    with honesty, reasonableness, and respect. You can be negative,
    derogatory, have grievances and do it in a way that is reasonable and
    respectful i.e., considerate.  Granted 3rd-parties don't participate,
    but conference participation allows balance and additional
    perspectives.
    
    Given one of cultural maxims, "Do the right thing", I hope we can
    continue to assume that people will be honest, fair and accurate", rather
     than fear "that we have no way of determining whether the comment is
     honest, fair, and accurate".   

================================================================================
Note 235.2*                RE: note 1.2, notes policy                     2 of 2
HANNAH::DCL "David Larrick"                          10 lines  12-JUL-1990 12:47
                -< HOME_WORK contractor recommendation policy >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a fair amount of discussion of this issue in SERENA::HOME_WORK, which is
about home maintenance and repair.  That conference used to contain both 
recommendations and non-recommendations for contractors in various specialties.
The new personnel policy caused the conference policy to change to positive 
recommendations only.  If anyone has a negative experience with a contractor,
they send MAIL to the moderators, who delete any existing positive references
to that contractor.

The policy statement is in topic 2000 in HOME_WORK, and the discussion that led 
to it is in topic 1312, starting at reply 23.
    

    Thanks for the input so far.  I, and I think everyone else who
    contributes to this conference, will appreciate your questions,
    opinions, and pointers to other conferences where these issues have
    been dealt with in some detail already.
    
    I don't have the time right now to contribute much to the discussion,
    but hopefully will within a week or so.  (We're bringing home our new
    baby this morning!  Imagine me grinning like an idiot:  8^) )
    
    My opinion falls somewhere near this:  if folks keep DEC's interests in
    mind when noting, it is possible to convey information about third
    parties without slandering them or opening DEC up to legal problems.  I
    could be wrong on this, though.  I want to read the HOME_WORK
    discussion and think a bit more on it.
    
    I must confess that I have set a few older notes hidden that I thought
    could cause DEC (and in particular, our conference) some problems.  I
    was in the middle of this activity when my wife went into labor, so I
    haven't notified the involved noters yet.  It wasn't many, and I don't
    anticipate finding many more, although some of the points raised in
    this discussion have certainly reared their ugly little heads during
    the course of my search.  There were, however, a few easy calls.  The
    person who sent me the text of note 1.2 sent it to me with a specific
    recommendation about one particular discussion that I think most people
    would agree needed to be set hidden.
    
    I guess the bottom line to me is the following (not necessarily in the
    following order):
    	1. I'd like the MAYNARD conference to stay open, 
        2. I'd like my career (and the careers of those noters who contribute 
           to MAYNARD) to remain untroubled by fuss resulting from noting,
        3. I'd prefer to keep DEC's $$ going toward (or near) my paycheck, 
           and not going toward a legal staff defending a note.
    
    I'm willing to work a little to decide how to meet those goals and
    still be able to contribute to the conference.  It sounds like the
    authors of .1, .2 and .3 are too, and I'll bet most folks who
    contribute to MAYNARD are.
    
    Oh, and please don't think I mean anything threatinging or sinister by
    number 2.  I've never been contacted by anyone regarding MAYNARD or my
    noting activities anywhere, and I certainly hold no power or desire to
    contact anyone else in any capacity other than moderator.  But I have
    seen a few notes in my (five?) years of noting stating that some noters
    or moderators have been contacted "officially", and would prefer to
    just avoid that whole scene.
    
    regards,
    
    Pete

    Something free in a notefile may be worth just that.  But here goes.
    
    I understand that if one expresses an OPINION and does not state a FACT
    that it frees up the atmosphere considerably.
    
    "It is my opinion that (when I found sand in my gas tank just after some
    kids with a bucket of sand, a funnel, and a trowel stopped near the left
    rear of my car ... worked a moment ... snickered ... and continued down
    the street ...)they did it. Would that get anyone into trouble? 
    Hopefully it might help identify and find those whom, again in my
    opinion, should be sanded properly.
    
    
    
    Stan/
                                

As a former moderator, I'd like to add a few comments.

   I believe that a reasonable policy statement is warranted.

   On a few occasions, I have requested by electronic mail to MAYNARD
   contributors that they remove/alter their notes, due to what I
   considered inappropriate references.  For example, denigrating
   and name-calling of specific individuals by name (particularly non-DEC
   persons).

   The MAYNARD notes file is of particular sensitivity to Digital.

   There are always two sides to every story.  I, myself, have definite
   opinions on (for example) the services of local businesses.  However,
   that may be from an isolated incident.  If I feel strongly enough,
   I can always send electronic mail with my opinion.  This is a different
   situation, than some local business hearing that (for example)
   "Digital has posted a message on its electronic bulliten board
   that local business ABC cheats its customers."  

   ALL the moderators (IMHO) of notes files bend over backward to
   allow reasonable discussion.  It's a fair bit of effort to monitor
   every note in a timely fashion.  They can't please everyone all the
   time, but I think they do a great job, and they should be thanked
   and their judgement respected.

   A little bit of self-restraint is worth it to maintain good will
   toward Digital.  The value to others of negative opinions (and
   personal vendettas - I've seen these too) are not worth the risk
   to Digital.

Jean

Since there seems to be a spurt of advertisement/recommendation type
notes lately, I'd like to get an official "policy" statement in note 1 that
addresses this area directly.

I'd like to adopt HOME_WORK's policy statement.  I've tweaked it a bit, to make
it meet the needs of the MAYNARD conference.

Comments and suggestions on this policy are welcome any time, but those that
arrive within the next week or so stand a better chance of influencing what
gets put in note 1.4, and therefore "adopted" by the conference members.

I used "third-party businesses" because that's the phrase that Ron Glover's
memo (posted in note 1.2) uses.  Due to the nature of this conference, we get
a lot of comments about individuals in the town.  Is this a potential source of 
legal liability that should be addressed more explicitly than what's already
in note 1.1?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When making a statement regarding any third-party businesses, the following
rules apply:

1) Due to liability issues, we no longer allow negative references in this 
   conference.  If you have a negative experience with a third-party business
   for which a positive reference has been given, send mail to one of the 
   moderators and we will delete the positive reference.

2) References are not allowed for third-party businesses you are associated 
   with.  Digital policy specifically prohibits use of company property for 
   business ads, and any ads entered here will be deleted.  Note also that due 
   to the biased nature of the source, any references for people you are closely
   connected to - ie relatives - will be considered to be ads.

Also, keep in mind that there are other notes conferences that are intended
for, and frequented by, noters with specific interests.  CARBUFFS, 
HOME_WORK, and EATS, are just a few examples of such conferences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Pete's note 261.150 "mellow", in the regionalization topic:

Pete, I've read your note several times, and I'm trying to figure out
what sort of discussion fits the rules, and which does not.

Otherwise, people are not only going enter notes arguing about regionalization,
they're going to enter notes arguing that the other guy's note is out of 
bounds and should deleted, and we're only going to compound the problem. 

>This conference is a great place to share information about Maynard.  
>
>Make that "share non-controversial information that is not easily confused
>with solicitation".
>
>It's *NOT* a great place for an argument about something as emotional as the 
>proposed regionalization agreement.

>So PLEASE.  For my sake.  NO MORE SOLICITATIONS.

It appears to me you're proposing two different restrictions:

(1) No argument (no discussion?) about the regionalization agreement, because
    it's emotional. 
(2) No solicitation.

Now as for (1), I can understand forbidding discussion *only* if people
are incapable of restraining themselves.  If the topic is so emotional,
that we all slander people left and right, and write half-truths without
any basis, then perhaps that's the only solution.  However, I don't see that a
discussion about the regionalization agreement is necessarily against company
policy. Look at note 93, the 1988 discussion about turning Coolidge School into
the Police station - that's another discussion about a serious Town Meeting
decision, and one where people had strong and differing opinions, but no one
got out of line, and no one proposed shutting down the discussion. 

I propose that we behave ourselves, and continue discussion of regionalization,
within guidelines.  What do you think, Pete?  Anyone else?

Now, for (2): what are the limits on solicitation?  In the extreme case, it's
pretty clear. For example, early on, SOS wrote a document called "Response to
Regionalization", which was handed out to people at various events, like when
SOS talked to the Parents' Groups.  It would be inappropriate to include that
document in the notesfile - it's clearly SOS propaganda. 

Let's try the other extreme: Darlene Hildebrand went to the great trouble of
typing in 2/3 of the regionalization agreement.  Is there reason to
object to that?  Clearly, no - it is of great service, in fact.

Now for the middle ground:  If I write a note responding to Darlene's note,
citing text in the agreement, describing, for example, how the authority of the
regional committee differs from that of our local school committee, is that
solicitation?  Since I'm opposed to this regionalization proposal, my
implication would probably be that the local way is better, and I might even
say "is this what we want to do?".  But it seems to be that as long as I don't
make it a plea, or I don't get pushy or inaccurate, that I'm not soliciting
anybody.  But where's the limit?  Should we say "this is a reason to vote
yes" or "vote no"?

Opinions?  This is the tough one, where people could get into excessive
finger-pointing.

>and PLEASE, for safety's sake NO MORE DEROGATORY COMMENTS ABOUT ANYBODY.
>
>I don't care if it's George Bush or George Shaw.

Well, yes, I have to agree.  I felt I could make a crack about George Shaw
in part because we're friends, and he would just laugh if anyone showed
him what I wrote in the notesfile.  But I won't in the future.

I just looked around the notesfile for some notes I'd seen in the past which
were far beyond the limits of the "safety" Pete mentioned, talking about a
certain municipal employee.  I was very pleased to find that those notes no
longer exist. 

Anyway, if our notes get mean and personal, it just distracts attention from
the important issues, which serves us all poorly. 

>If any of you feel like taking
>over the responsibility of hosting this conference, that's fine too, just
>send mail.
>
>Pete, with his moderator's hat on, which doesn't feel too comfortable right now

I sympathize - it's not easy, it consumes time which you don't really have and
I certainly wouldn't want to be a moderator. Anyway, then I'd have to keep out
of the fray... 

-Steve

Hi,

Recently, a note was extracted from this conference and shown to a non-Digital
employee.  

While I haven't found an explicit reference prohibiting this in the corporate
policy and procedures (see note 1.5), it doesn't "feel" like the right sort of 
thing to do.  Now if this conference in general, or the particular note 
contained company confidential information, it would have been a clear violation
of company policy.

While this particular incident only involved one person showing another person 
(or maybe a few) the note, it isn't tough to imagine someone extracting a note
and giving it a wider audience.  Handbills, public posting, news media, etc..

So, I'd like to propose a conference policy:

  "BEFORE quoting a note in this conference in a context OUTSIDE this 
   conference, and *ESPECIALLY* if quoting the note outside the company, you 
   MUST obtain the permission of the note's author, and, depending on the amount
   of exposure that this quote could be subject to, obtain the permission of
   the Digital's personnel and/or legal departments, as appropriate."

If anybody has input on this, or a reference to a relevant explicit corporate 
policy, a general noting etiquitte statement, or another conference's policy, 
please jump right in.  

Consider this policy to be in effect as of right now.  We can tweak it later, 
if need be.

RE: 225.8

Steve, you make some very good points and observations.  And I think your note's
title is a great summary and suggestion.

I didn't set the regionalization note NOWRITE or take the conference offline.
I don't want to have to do that.  But I will do that (or whatever is 
appropriate) if I feel that the contents of this conference violate the stated 
corporate policies to a degree that, if discovered by (or pointed out to) the
right (wrong :^) people would affect my job one iota.

Let's get down to brass tacks: my salary supports my family and my lifestyle.
It's my name in the conference moderator's slot.  I'm *not* willing to have
anything in this conference have any negative influence on my career.  I don't
expect that any of the contributors to this conference feel much differently
about the effects that the notes in this conference may have on their 
own careers.

If I see something that in my opinion violates the corporation's policies,
I'm obligated to do something about it, for the reasons stated above and because
that's what the corporation's policy states that I'm supposed to do.  I don't
consider myself to be a perfect note judge/jury/executioner, nor do I in any
way desire to unnecessarily stifle the contributors to this conference.  I
just want to do my (real) job well and occasionally read about what's going on 
in MAYNARD.  :^)

We're ALL bound by the corporation's policies.  Let's stick to 'em and continue
to enjoy a great benefit of working here: the ability to exchange information
in this conference.

    I think that the recent comments by our Moderator are very well
    taken, and I'd like to add a personal comment.  
    
    When I first started reading this conference a couple of years ago,
    the thing that struck me was that there were very few positive comments
    being made about the Town that I grew up in and still live in today.
    I decided to enter a note on Maynard History to try to show some of
    the positive aspects of this Town.  Shortly thereafter, I followed
    this note with a Maynard trivia note.  Both notes were well received
    and more and more previous "read only" noters joined in and the
    conference took a decided turn for the better.  I used the Maynard
    conference to get feedback on the Charter that we were writing. We
    wrote about Maynard's Town Squares, and the Watering Troughs, and
    the origin of Street names, and those mysterious trestles that keep
    popping up at low tide in the Mill Pond. 
    
    I firmly believe that the Maynard Notes Conference is much better
    today than it was two years ago.  It is a very valuable source for
    information and discussion on issues in our Town.  We must be very
    careful in our entries to ensure that we continue to have this
    forum to discuss mutual interests about Maynard, "the Center of the
    Universe".  I, for one, would dearly hate to lose this conference,
    since it is unique in Digital.
    
    There are about 30 regular contributors to this notesfile today.
    However, Digital has about 119,000 employees who have access to
    this notesfile.  In reality, there are probably 1,000 or more
    people in "read-only" mode who are reading our comments on a 
    regular basis.  If you write a note or reply in this conference,
    you are probably getting wider distribution than the Beacon and
    Middlesex News combined.  Think about how you would like your
    comments published world-wide before you enter a note.  
    
    To paraphrase Steve Ruzich:  Just behave yourself.  
    
    Thanks,
    Frank

    I've gotten an answer from the legal dept. on the practice of
    extracting notes and showing them to non-DEC employees.  It seems
    personnel wants absolutely nothing to do with non-company related
    notesfiles.
    
    It is legal to extract notes from non-company related notesfiles. 
    However, the conference name, node name and user name (i.e., the header
    at the top of the page) must not be included in what is shown.  This *is* 
    Digital's business.
    
    Upon the request of another noter, I'll add a story providing a
    possible reason for this policy being put into affect.  In a non-company 
    related notesfile, Employee A mentioned the fact that he had been given 
    a speeding ticket in a particular town.  Employee A stated he was going
    to have the ticket fixed.  Employee B knew the cop who had written the 
    ticket.  Employee B extracted the note, and showed it to the cop 
    responsible for writing the ticket.  The cop went on to continually 
    harrass Employee A, because of what he had found out.  To make a long 
    story short, Employee B admitted to the wrongdoing.  Employee B was 
    terminated. 
    
    					Steve

Re: .9 and .12

I've talked to my personnel rep and he doesn't see anything wrong with
showing a note to someone outside DEC.  I gree that any information about
the DEC ENET must be deleted. 

I think the policy should be:

	"If you don't want to be quoted, then don't write it in a public
	place (like the Maynard Notes File).  If you do, then it's
	public info." 

I think the story in .12 is very strange.  Someone help me with the 
logic.

Employee A said that he was going to "have the ticket fixed".  I thought 
that "fix a ticket" was idiomatic for "having someone nullify the ticket 
outside legal channels" and represented a crime of some sort.  Am I 
correct about that?

It seems to me that employee A was both stupid and the perpetrator of a 
crime (if he actually did it).

All employee B did, according to .12, is to relay the info (about a proposed
crime) to the policeman.  Granted, what the policeman should have done then
is to check whether the crime did in fact happen and let legal process take
its course.  Public officials are never supposed to harass people. 

I don't see what employee B's "wrongdoing" was.
 
If the story really ended as printed, then (my opinion) justice was not 
served TWICE.

I propose my policy above.  

What do you say, Pete?

:-)

John

    Re: John Comella
    
    It sounds like you agree with the policy that the notesfile name, enet 
    address, and username should be removed.  Good, then don't give notes
    from me, with my name on them, to Robert Schleelein or anyone else,
    anymore.
    
    Thank you.
    
    
    Re: ticket fixing scenario
    
    This really has nothing to do with the Maynard notes conference.  But,
    are you that unfamiliar with the buddy system, cronyism, etc., that
    takes place all over this country?  If you want to argue this one with 
    someone, I suggest you take it to SOAPBOX.  You'll have a more
    interested audience.
    
    					Steve

Re: Note 225.14 by BUILD::MORGAN 
    
>>    It sounds like you agree with the policy that the notesfile name, enet 
>>    address, and username should be removed.  Good, then don't give notes
>>    from me, with my name on them, to Robert Schleelein or anyone else,
>>    anymore.

Not quite, Steve.  I won't give out any notes with file-names or
NODE-ADDRESSES (which is what DEC cares about) on them.  It's your ENET
nodename that will come off.  Your name is fair game. 

    
>> Re: ticket fixing scenario 

>> This really has nothing to do with the Maynard notes conference.  But, are
>> you that unfamiliar with the buddy system, cronyism, etc., that takes place
>> all over this country?  If you want to argue this one with someone, I
>> suggest you take it to SOAPBOX.  You'll have a more interested audience. 

I don't want to argue about it, but I would like to understand it.  You are
the one who cited it.  I would hate to get blindsided like that by personnel
and it doesn't sound right to me.  Can somebody explain it? 

Thanks.

John

re: .15

>the one who cited it.  I would hate to get blindsided like that by personnel
>and it doesn't sound right to me.  Can somebody explain it? 

Uh, speaking of getting blindsided by <pick-a-corporate-department>, I really
don't want to encourage the idea that it's totally OK to extract notes and
make them as public as, say, giving them to a <pick-your-form-of-news-media>.

That personnel rep whose opinion you garnered would, I believe, change it mighty
quick if his own job were affected by you extracting and publicizing a note.

It's really not difficult to imagine scenarios where a widely publicized note 
damages DEC or DEC employees.  I won't waste my fingers typing them in.

This issue calls for restraint and discipline on (at least) two fronts:

	1) Note writers should be aware that even COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL material
	   can be obtained (against the company's wishes) and used against the
	   company in a legal battle, and therefore it is not a good idea to 
	   create any correspondence (notes, mail, interoffice memos, 
	   recordings, etc.) which can be damaging to the company.

	2) Note extractors should carefully consider the ramifications of
	   distributing any notes.  This is not to say that it's OK or not OK
	   to do this according to company policy.  It just means you should
	   understand that a seemingly simple act can have far-ranging and
	   unanticipated consequences.

I personally am still of the opinion that notes are company property, and should
not be distributed freely outside of DEC.  I don't care what an individual in
one personnel or legal department says in a single conversation.

I doubt anybody in personnel or legal would be willing to put their badge number
at the top of every notes conference along with a note saying "Hey, feel free to
distribute any non-company related information you find in here as widely as you
like.  If *anybody* gives you, or the moderators of this conference, any trouble,
tell them to talk to me."

All VAXNotes files, and their contents, are "Digital Internal Use Only."

Ditto.

What is written HERE, stays HERE.  Unless you have written 
permission from the author, you should not be extracting notes 
out of ANY notesfile.  

Thems the rules

    And it it also a point of "notes etiquette" that you never extract a
    note and move it anywhere - especially any public place (conference,
    mail, etc.) - without the permission of the author.
    
    Placing entries in a "public" conference does NOT make it fair game
    for anything other than use within the conference.
    
    - dave

For those who may have missed it, the corporation set renewed guidelines for
notes files about 5(?) years ago based (at least) on two controversies:

1.  SEXCETERA - the sex notes file (no longer extant)
2.  The consumer notes file.  One employee felt she was treated unfairly
    at an Acton jewelry store and complained about it in the notes file.
    One or more of the store owners had spouses in DEC; they saw the note,
    complained to Personnel and several policy statements arose out of the
    ensuing debate (in my own words):

    a.  As corporate "documents", notes files can be subpoenaed.  Ergo, 
        be careful what you write.
    b.  Since merchants do not have the opportunity to respond to negative
        criticism, such criticism is not appropriate for notes files.
    c.  Above all else, notes files are the property of DEC, and not intended
        for public dissemination.    

I'm not sure that even an author's dispensation is sufficient to reveal a note
to someone outside DEC, since once the note is created, it becomes company
property.
    
               

 What I don't understand is, if "notes files are the property of DEC, and not
 intended for public dissemination" then why are we concerned if "merchants do
 not have the opportunity to respond to negative criticism"?

 This is not a public forum such as you'd find on radio or TV.  It's closed,
 private.

 Maybe someone can explain it to me.

 Thanks,

 Cliff

    I'm not a lawyer either, but it's a simple case of maintaining a
    database that may continue faulty or fabricated information,
    information that can adversely affect someone's business.  If you
    complain to the BBB, the merchant is notified of the complaint and has
    a chance to present his side of this dispute.  Likewise, you can examine 
    your own credit history and dispute erroneous information.
    
    The precedent is not consistent, of course:  some small-time landlords
    keep PC-based data on "deadbeat" or "undesireable" tenants and share
    that information with each other.  In the cases I've seen in the news,
    there is no provision for checking your own record or filing a
    grievance.
    
    Anyway, a large and wealthy corporation represents a potential legal
    target for someone who is willing and able to prove that he has been
    wronged.  Since at least some merchants know of the existence of notes
    files, these then become potential sources of evidence for litigation.

    
         I have keep my mouth shut up til now, If the problem is someone
    doing somthing they should not then do something about it.
         I was a moderator of a conference and some people did not like the 
    conference, they keep going to personnel and asking questions and
    before you know it I was spending more time trying to defend the
    conference that I deleted it. (we had 123 members). If the upper 
    management has their will all conferences not related to DEC specfic 
    topics would be deleted, so I would not keep giving them the
    ammo for it. I understand the problems, be I also know by experience
    that the cure is sometimes worse. I enjoy this conference to much
    to have it taken away.
    
    bc
    

re: .21

     There are enough Digital employees that even an internal publication is
effectively "public", at least for some purposes.  

     For example, suppose I incorrectly state in a notesfile "Some of the
kitchen help at <Restaurant in Provincetown>" are known salmonella carriers." 
Well, that may affect their business, but not by much.  Now suppose I said
the same thing about a lunchcounter in Maynard.  I could literally put them
out of business.

Clay     

     
>I'm not sure that even an author's dispensation is sufficient to reveal a note
>to someone outside DEC, since once the note is created, it becomes company
>property.
    
    It isnt!

    Mail, memos, documents, notes are INTERNAL USE ONLY, they are
not supposed to leave the building.  They are NOT supposed to be
shared with non-digital personnel.  How do you think the boston
globe and the hearld get half their information about DEC? People
shooting off their mouths, printing out memos and circulating
them around... 

    Ill never forget when the word came down the first time about
the proposed layoffs.  Someone forwarded a confidential memo
around with their comment Gee when I worked at McDonalds in high
school they said I was a good worker, I bet I could go back and
work for them if I had to.  The next day the Boston Globe had an 
article on the front page about digital laying off the number of 
people named in that memo, and also the quote about McDonalds.  
Cute huh?  If stuff like this goes on much longer we wont have to 
worry about some Jewelry store having a hiss about someone 
badmouthing them in a notesfile because digital wont be here.

    M

    
    
       So I a assuming if you share info with your spouse, you have violated
    company policy. Is that correct?
    
    
    bc

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I just thought I'd share a little  
notesfile-related incident which occurred a couple of weeks ago.

In the thick of the pre-town meeting fuss, my wife Cindy was called by a
Middlesex News reporter.  He specifically asked about "the Digital
computer bulletin board" concerning the Town of Maynard.  Cindy said
something deliberately vague, and the reporter moved on to other topics.

(If you ever have to deal with the press, one trick to remember is that 
if you answer the question by saying words that are either vague or
bland, it won't look good in print.  Anything that doesn't hook the
reader is unlikely to end up in print.  That way you can answer their
questions, but control what's published, to a very small degree, anyway.) 

The story appeared on the front page of the Middlesex, with a line about
Email messages buzzing around Digital.  Close call, there.

.225>    If the upper 
.225>    management has their will all conferences not related to DEC specfic 
.225>    topics would be deleted, so I would not keep giving them the
.225>    ammo for it. 

That's my impression, too.  Can you imagine what would happen if some VP
saw a front-page story about the Maynard notesfile?  These days, everybody is 
looking for a way to put a feather in their cap by saving money, and 
increasing productivity.  You could hold your breath in the time it 
would take for this forum to disappear.

We don't know anything about a computer bulletin board about Maynard, 
do we?  'Course not.

-Steve

Hi All.

This is to announce that Julian Parker has graciously volunteered to co-moderate
MAYNARD.  

Thanks very much Julian!