Conference 7.286::digital

    The contents of 190.0 are similar to things discussed by DTL in
    the past, and thus seem admissible.

    I don't know what the contents of 190.0 are, but I do know
    Didier doesn't work for DEC anymore...
    

	Simon,

	I replied to the original note and told of my experiences because
	I felt that Bobbi was somewhat unrealistic in her approach (it 
	sounded like she was throwing in the towel).  I also think she 
	was questioning the 'Open Door Policy' and that has definately
	been discussed in this conference.  I think you should let the
	note be seen,   there are things like this happening in DEC,
	you can't close your eyes to it.

	Chuck    

As I read the note I was wondering if it was going to be hidden as it was a
little on the strong side (though I can see from the author's perspective that
she had a real issue to raise).  I think the subject of the note is a legit
one, namely what is DEC's policy on job transfers (I hope it's ok for me to say
this much) and what are the exceptions? 

-mark

    I don't know what the contents of 190 are/were either.  I don't
    think one can say that the conference is more important than the
    moderator - I think they go hand-in-hand.  Also, I don't think that
    someone having the title of "manager" presents a conflict of interest.
     This conference is DIGITAL.  The moderator is DIGITAL first and
    manager second and, therefore, doesn't represent a conflict in my
    eyes.
    
    		Billie
    
    p.s.  I didn't know the moderator was a manager until this note.
    

    I saw 190.*, and I think you were right to hide them.   .0 was venting
    gills because of a recent bad experience.   It was informative that
    such an event could happen, but the way it was presented was out
    of line.

    How can I give a reasonable opinion if I haven't the slightest
    idea of what is in 190.*. 
    
    In any case I hope the note wasn't hidden for fear of "upsetting"
    management. If there is nothing in the Policy and Procedures
    manual forbidding the discussion of these topics they should be
    reinstated. 

    			Fred

    I know no more about 190.* than the title(s). However 1.0 invites
    flaming about issues related to Digital. It also points out that
    no-one has ever been fired for speaking their mind. However I note
    also that Didier (who wrote 1.0) is no longer an employee.
    
    In 1.1 Simon re-affirms this policy, and vows to resist censorship,
    claiming there are no rules here.
    
    Now that said I believe we need to conduct these discussions with
    a modicum of decorum. If 190.0 exceeded the bounds of good taste
    then perhaps it should be hidden. The purpose of SET NOTE/HIDDEN
    is to allow the author a cooling off period. Had the note been deleted
    out of hand then perhaps I would be resentful of the censorship.
    Setting it hidden allows the author to reconsider, and perhaps rephrase
    the entry (remember the author is the only person other than the
    moderator who can now read 190.0).
    
    So my feeling is the note should remain hidden for a reasonable length
    of time and then either be deleted or opened up. Leaving it there
    hidden has no valid purpose. 
    
    As for this file I think it serves a valid function as a sounding
    board -- people will discuss "Digital conditions" any way, and this
    opens up the debate to the whole net community and gives it a breadth
    it would not otherwise have by overcoming isolation.
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    

        I don't know if it applies in this case, as the note is hidden,
        but I've wondered at the potential for conflict of interest with
        mangers who moderate. Ultimately though, it isn't with managers
        who moderate it is with managers who are active noters.
        
        There are a whole class of things that any manager at DEC is
        required to take action upon if they become aware of it--things
        like harassment, unionizing, legal entanglements, and the like.
        A manager who knows about anything like this and doesn't act
        upon it is putting his job on the line. Several conferences have
        occurances of this sort come up in them, especially as we are
        still establishing what you can and can't say in print. Many
        times the incident isn't clear cut--it's a real judgement call
        as to whether what has been said is wrong.
        
        Since we are just defining what noting, and responsible noting
        are, it would appear that some lee-way out to be given, that
        some mistakes should be ignored or worked out off-line. the
        problem is that the material is in black and white (or 1s and
        0s) and may via extraction, be spreading. The off-line things
        usually can't be documented.
        
        Confounding all this is the fact that responsible moderating and
        responsible noting, which include handling the problem before it
        gets escalated is one of the things that is causing some of
        upper management and Personnel to support employee activity
        noting, and helping conferences to survive the occasional
        incident.
        
        The question is, how does a manager who actively notes or who
        moderates a conference, and can be documented as having seen a
        problem, but not as having done anything about it balance the
        need to participate in the growth of responsible noting with his
        clear obligation to take official action?
        
        Personnally, I think the moderators of this file, Simon and
        Peter have done an extremely good job of keeping that balance,
        of making sure that mistakes, misuse and abuse are handled
        with the greatest discretion possible, and that this basic
        fact is fairly well documented. I suspect a number of managers
        and high level technical people, who command some respect,
        concur, and if there were an incident over this conflict
        we could persuade the powers that be that DEC rule #1--"Do
        the right thing" has been followed. HOWEVER, I'm not a manager,
        and just 'cause I believe this is no guarentee that they
        aren't taking a risk.
        
        It is a complex issue, and one that will take some serious
        thought and work on all our parts. Noting is a real education.
        We're being forced to examine hard decisions and to learn how
        DEC works, and what the conflicts are it faces. It is critical
        that the free flow of ideas not be hampered, and at the same
        time that DEC and its employees not be made vulnerable or
        liable. These are issues and problems that were once faced only
        by policy making parts of DEC. Today they are being thought of
        and directly affecting all classes of employee.
        
        Please understand the positions that managers, moderators, and
        your fellow noters find themselves in. Please understand the
        real-world trade-offs that have to be made, and the complexity
        of issues involved. 
        
        JimB. (who is going back to is vacation, already in progress.)

        The previous note was hidden by the author (me) immediately
        after it was written, solely because it mentions individuals by
        name, and I want to make sure that they are not made overly
        uncomfortable by it. It will be unhidden or deleted soon.
        
        JimB.

    I think that the note is somewhat on the borderline, but for the moment
    I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and let it stand. 
    
    Regardless of what is in my job title, I expect to be moderator in the
    same manner.  However, I think that the potential conflict of interest
    is in my mind.  What I as an employee am willing to let pass, I as a
    manager may be expected to act or report on.  Jim Burrows has explained
    this quite well in the previous reply.
    
  --Simon
     

I have no idea what was written in 190.0, but I have a problem 
with moderators doing this kind of thing. If a person wants to say something, 
whether in person, by memo or in a notes file, no one has the right to prevent 
that person from speaking (or noting) their mind. I do understand Simon's
sensitivity to a file over which he is moderator, but I say if you can't stand 
the heat stay of of the kitchen. As I see it the moderator can give the author 
some feedback about how the notes comes across, but the author is the one who 
should hide or delete it.....not the moderator.

That's my 2 cents.

Jim (who has 'manager' in his job title)

    written before I discovered 190.0 had been opened up again.
    
    ==================
    
    
    I'm not a lawyer so I spoke to my cousin who is (in England), and
    he tells me that in his opinion in English law a moderator of a
    notes conference is probably in the same position as the editor
    of a newspaper or book, and liable for what appears in it.
    
    Hence if the moderator allowed something to remain visible after
    becoming aware of it, then they are "aiding and abetting" the
    publication of that material.
    
    This goes far beyond a duty to provide the noter with "some feedback".
    
    So I still feel that if the note went beyond the bounds of acceptable
    decorum, or was in any way was contrary to the good of Digital, then
    Simon, as moderator was not only entitled to hide the note, but
    also morally (if not perhaps legally) obliged to do so.
    
    Also I am curious about a more difficult quasi-legal consideration:
    this notes conference is readable in other countries than America, many
    of which have very different legal attitudes to what may be published.
    And before you query my choice of the word "published" the British
    legal definition is to generate in any form a text that is seen by
    three or more persons. 

    =======
    
    written after reading 190.*
    
    I am not sure whether I would hide this note over the personnel issues
    it discusses, however I do query the wisdom of a note that attacks a DEC
    product, especially one that says that "V2.0 ... open to liability
    suits". I'm not sure of the (American) legal position but I'm sure that
    in the event of such a suit the lawyers for the other side would love
    to discover that one of the developers felt it was so bad... 
    
    /. Ian .\ 

I read 190 before it got set hidden and I don't think there's anything
in there worth hiding.  Read it again: the author is relatively new at
Digital, clearly facing a problem area, and not knowing where to turn
for help.  Are we so high & mighty that we can turn our backs on the
problem??  Should we just brush it off thinking that the author will surely
realize we have an ODP and leave it at that??  (When you were a new hire,
how much emphasis did personnel or your manager put on ODP, other than
a casual gloss-over that suggested that it exists within Digital?)

Major problems like this *do* happen within Digital.  In my opinion, we
are doing ourselves a disservice by hiding the note.  Look at the potential
outcome: the author, a potentially good employee who has stated that they
want to remain a Digital employee, quits because that appears to be the
only open avenue.  Besides losing a potentially good employee, who is now
working for the competition, that person is now also telling his co-workers
at the new employer what it's "really like" to work for Digital.  And to
add insult to injury, the problem mentioned still exists!

What would you suggest for this type of problem/query/request for suggestions?
Should the author of such a note put the whole thing into abstract terms?
(See "a hypothetical question" in this conference).

    I don't think a moderator's responsibilities include letting person-
    with-a-problem's immediate manager know that trouble is brewing.
    
    Jon

        RE: 191.13, by Jim Mickol
        
        I'm sorry you have a problem with moderators doing this sort of
        thing. It is clearly required that managers take action, and as
        I learned recently over an incident in a file I moderate, it is
        a practical necessity that moderators become involved in this
        way if individual employee interest conferences and perhaps even
        employee interest noting in general are going to survive.
        
        You are correct that no-one has a right to prevent another from
        exercising their right to free speach, at least in most of the
        countries where the Easy-net extends. However, although we may
        not have the right to prevent another from speaking their mind
        in general, as employees of DEC we may have an obligation at
        times to require them to do it off company premisses.
        
        Your view of noting is laudable in general (being based on
        important principles), and correct if the notes medium were a
        public forum. It is, I believe, unrealistic with regard to
        company owned and sponsored conferences. 
        
        Of course, one of the beauties of DEC and notes is that if you
        disagree with me or with Simon or any moderator, you are free to
        establish your own conferences and run them as you see fit. Many
        dozens of people are doing this, and we all run them
        differently. Over time there will be incidents in many, if not
        most of the conferences, some conferences will handle them well
        and will survive, some will run aground on the rocks of
        corporate policy and mangerial whim (upper management is of
        course, just as free to interpret "Do the right thing" as the
        rest of us). 
        
        Given recent experience, I suspect that conferences that are run
        the way I define "responsible noting" and "responsible
        moderating" will survive in this free market/natural selection
        process better than those run the way you would prefer. Only
        time will tell.
        
        JimB.

        In many cases you are right that "a moderator's responsibilities
        [doesn't] include letting person-with-a-problem's immediate
        manager know that trouble is brewing." But what about the
        case where the immediate manager has been named and his
        competence questioned publicly? Should the moderator make
        sure that he has the opportunity to defend himself, and to
        see what is said about him? He is an employee whose career
        might be affected by what is said, too.
        
        JimB.

re Note 191.16 by HUMAN::BURROWS:

>         a practical necessity that moderators become involved in this
>         way if individual employee interest conferences and perhaps even
>         employee interest noting in general are going to survive.
  
It depends upon what you mean by "survive".  Up to this point notes conferences
have had much of the spontaneity of a conversation among friends.  I don't
think that that will continue for long.


>         Your view of noting is laudable in general (being based on
>         important principles), and correct if the notes medium were a
>         public forum. 

The "public forum" issue is a red herring in this case (the case of topic
190.*).  The content and subject matter of 190.0 is entirely appropriate for a
discussion on Digital property among Digital employees or a memo transmitted on
a Digital letterhead using Digital's facilities.  This conference,
DIGITAL.NOTE, is a work-related conference. 
        

>         Given recent experience, I suspect that conferences that are run
>         the way I define "responsible noting" and "responsible
>         moderating" will survive in this free market/natural selection
>         process better than those run the way you would prefer. Only
>         time will tell.
        
I suspect that both kinds will die, only of different causes.

Pessimistically,
Bob

    Back to the original question about what is acceptable, my major
    concern with 190 is that it names names, without those people having
    the benefit of presenting their side of the story.  Someone will
    say that they are free to reply to that note, but I can't imagine
    an issue like that being debated in a public forum.
    
    There are always two sides to a story.   I think it is appropriate
    in this conference to complain about the sort of things that 190
    complains about, but don't think it is appropriate to say "This
    is all caused by the stupidity of Joe Q. Manager and Sam V. President."
    It is simply not fair to one-sided information about a person in
    a public forum such as this.
    
    Burns
    

Remember, this forum ISN'T public.  But it's not "personnel confidential",
either.

Bob

I am the person who wrote 190.0.  I have no problems at all with 
a moderator setting things hidden; that's what moderation is for.

This is, of course, assuming that the author is notified of the 
hiddeness (did I say that right?) of the note.  I wasn't, but 
that's all right.  I guess it got unhidden fairly soon.

To relate some more on the moderation of this note:

ZAHAREE (sorry, I don't remember the name or nodename) sent me a 
reply to my note indicating that there was some problem.  I gave 
him/her permission to set it hidden, if necessary, although that 
wasn't asked for, and for all I know, my reply never reached its 
destination.

If someone feels that there are problems with the way I posted my 
note, I can request the moderator to delete it (I think I can't 
do that myself, since there are now replies to it).

I was under the impression that this was an INTERNAL USE ONLY- 
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL file, and that therefore everything that I 
said (and believe me, I left a lot out!) was within that rubric.  
I humbly apologize if that is not the case.  I made the note long 
because I wanted to be fair in showing both sides of the issue 
(i.e., management needs me to stay, but I don't think the reason 
is compelling enough to not feel like an indentured servant).  I 
will cheerfully accept any criticism of my writing style (send 
MAIL only please -the "pun"dits will overload the NOTES servers 
:-)
 
I in no way intended to cause a furor over greater issues of what 
goes in this notesfile (excuse me, conference--old habits die hard!), 

I think that the moderators are doing a good job!!  And I 
value them highly; I hope you all do, too.  If they weren't here, 
I wouldn't be able to talk to this conference, because there 
wouldn't _be_ a conference.

Also, to speak in my defense:

I try to respect the need for machines to be free for real work 
during the day, and therefore do not access non work conferences 
directly.  Rather I use RAYNAL::OSMAN's excellent batch routine.  
This means that I had to come in even earlier than usual to post 
my note, and didn't have time to SEARCH and READ any notes on 
what is inappropriate, relying on my memory of such discussions.

Again, I apologize for causing such a furor (except on the issue 
I was addressing :-) !)  I do have a follow-up, a further 
explanation of the policy as explained by the personnel (no more 
names) representative.  But I will hold off from making any more 
notes until I get word that I am not writing inappropriately.

Thanks for your support, and thanks, moderators.

Bobbi
_who_still_feels_things_aren't_right.

Re .14:

Your suspicions about the wisdom of discussing legal issues relating
to Digital in a conference are well founded.  The Legal Department's
section in the past few Engineering Guides make it quite plain that no
one should so much as write "Gee, I think we are violating the law" in
a document REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE RIGHT OR WRONG.  They assert
that evidence that we suspected that we were doing something wrong can
be used against us, even when the suspicion was unfounded.

I don't know whether a section of the Engineering Guide counts as high
in the policy pecking order as, say, Personnel Policies and
Procedures.  But if someone asked Legal's advice, I doubt they'd
change their tune.

The Guide's Legal section is too large to type in every time someone
violates their contents.  Perhaps Legal ought to stick the entire set
of guidelines in their VTX database.  As far as J. Random Netwalker is
concerned, Legal would be better off using the space for the rules
than for a bunch of Digital trademarks, if one had to make a choice
between the two.
				/AHM

I replied to note 190, but I've got mixed emotions about it.

Why I responded:
The note was written by a Digital person who seems stuck in a tight
spot - one where friends of mine have been.  I thought some insights
into how to alleviate the situation might help them and the rest of
us-DECies if we ever are in this situation.

Why I almost didn't respond:
This note both "names names" and also says things that are (at best)
uncomplimentary about a product and its management.  There are other
ways to shake trees regarding products rather than "going public" -
such as escallating the problems through CSSE.

Simon, I think you did the right thing in un-hiding the note.

Bobbi, would you consider reposting your note just detailing the
personnel/transfer issues?  If so, the sensitive topics in 190 could
be hidden and we could give you advice on life in Digital (what we're
participating in this conference.)

BobW

    Now that it's after work hours, there's a bit more time to compose
    this note explaining some points that were probably not expressed
    very well originally.
    
    First, this moderator doesn't really have time to keep on top of
    this conference.  Therefore I'm grateful to those readers who draw
    the moderators' attention to notes that may need to be reviewed.
    
    Second, while I wouldn't write the kind of note that names names,
    or make questionable remarks about products, I'd just as soon let
    each person learn for him/herself what to write and what not to
    write.  However, these days people are just as likely to take a
    moderator to task for allowing inappropriate remarks to be made
    about them, as to take up the issue with the writer.  The same goes
    for injudicious remarks about projects or products.
    
    Third, the act of hiding notes is a temporizing measure, not an
    act of censorship, although this feature could be abused.  If the
    moderator has no doubt about the propriety of a note, no action
    is needed.  If a note clearly does not belong in a conference, it
    could be deleted right away, although courtesy should lead a moderator
    to hide a note and then let the writer of the note reconsider whether
    to keep the note or delete it.  But hiding a note is also a way
    to buy time, to consider whether there is a problem with a note.
    
    For some reason, hiding a note is considered somewhat of a hostile
    act, not a neutral, non-prejudicial act.  Perhaps this is not the
    case with you, but reread the first two sentences in .0 and see
    if you get a different impression now of what I was doing.
    
    But what has this got to do with conflict of interest?  Well, I
    shouldn't have written one topic to cover more than one thing.
    The question of propriety of note 190.0 isn't really what this topic
    is about.  Obviously, having hidden the topic, I couldn't expect
    an informed opinion out of you whether I should keep it hidden,
    although now that you can see what the fuss is about, I do welcome
    your feedback, positive or negative.
    
    What I was really thinking was this.  Why do we have this conference
    anyway?  What I, as one employee, feel that this forum should be
    is a place where we can interact with our co-workers about various
    aspects of work, both good and bad, and to exchange information.
    Complaining is acceptable, but within bounds.  The question of where
    is the line between appropriate and inappropriate comments (for
    this conference) is what I would like you to express your opinion
    on.
    
    Why am I concerned about potential conflict of interest?  Well,
    if the ground rules of this conference are that you can say anything
    you want, do I protect the company's interest or yours if there
    should be a conflict?  Or your interest and a co-worker's?  I suppose
    that any moderator faces the same questions, regardless of job title.
    But I have a sneaking suspicion that managers are considered to
    have more accountability than others who are not "management."
    It may be conflict of interest for me as moderator to take a laissez-
    faire attitude.
    
    That's all I have to say for now.  Thanks for listening.
    
  --Simon
    

.21>  ... I can request the moderator to delete it (I think I can't do that
.21>myself, since there are now replies to it). 

    You certainly can delete your own note.  I can see you have used
    NOTES (the old version) before.
    
  --Simon
    

re Deleting notes

This is sort of a tangent, brought on by earlier replies about the Legal
Department's recommendations on statements made in internal documents.

I remember seeing a memo recently which stated that any memo or internal
document relating to the conduct of our business, no matter how trivial
and no matter whether it seemed directly related to that particular
litigation or not was not to be destroyed under any circumstances.

Should the NOTES "delete" command be disabled for work-related conferences?

/john

    All of us need to be a professional as possible in our noting. 
    As this note shows, it is very easy to become emotional over noting.
    I found Simon's explantion of how hiding a note buys time for
    moderation to be excellent.  Moreover, the moderator actions in
    this case were exactly correct.
    
    The note in question was borderline in its explicitness.  It does
    sure a very valuable purpose for both the writer and the responders.
    It is completely valid for inclusion in this conference.
    
    This conference is a way for us, the noting public, to maintain
    the Digital culture.  It provides a forum for validating our beliefs
    in the way Digital should work.
    
    Let's continue to help make Digital even better through this
    conference.
    
    Don

Re .26:

No, it should not be disabled.

The person who deletes a note is responsible for saving a copy of it
in a secure place, in case someone needs a copy for litigation.
				/AHM

    Not knowing what was said in 190.0, I cannot give an opinion for
    that note.  However, the DIGITAL conference as a whole has been
    very educational and helpful to me in the past.   
    
    As far as "appropriate and inappropriate comments", I feel that
    discussing DEC's good and not so good areas is appropriate as long
    as "the names have been changed to protect the innocent" (or not
    so innocent :-).  Only by being able to at least verbalize problems
    within DEC can possible solutions be found.  
    
    Also, as long as I'm giving my opinion, I feel the moderators of
    this conference have always acted in a responsible manner.  Keep
    up the good work.  
    
    Bernice
    

    	I never got to read 190.0, but as the rest of the topic stands,
    I don't think there's any question that it is appropriate to the
    conference.
    
    	In general, I think the whole "inappropriate comments" question
    is one which has to do more with all conferences on the E-Net than
    with DIGITAL specifically. We need an overall policy on all aspects
    of what is allowable and what is not in public conferences. Period.
    We need every noter to read it and respect it to the best of their
    understanding and interpretation. They also need to be responsible
    for their notes, and realize that words are actions. 
    
    	Anyway, what is this conference for? My conceptual model for
    conferences is a room, where people are having conversations. It's
    true that these people can discuss anything they want, assuming
    they choose basically the right room (conference) for their
    conversation. However, they should remember as they talk that
    everything they say is being miked, amplified throughout the building
    by loudspeakers, recorded on tape, and broadcast via satellite around
    the world. The breadth of the audience doesn't in itself censor
    or suggest censorship on the part of the participants, but it does
    suggest that certain attitudes need to be maintained.
    
    	I'd say more, but I'm tired. I think this conference is very
    useful, and Simon I think you have been doing a fine job. 
    
    	I do miss Didier, though. Ah well...
    
    	Ed

    RE.: 29,30
    Fully agree, this is a great conference! Thanks, Simon !
    As far as policies on conferences concern, I would stick to the
    following rules:
    1) I'll try to comply with the "written and unwritten" laws of any
       conference that I am interested in.
    2) The moderator is always right in his decisions
    3) If I don't like the moderator's decisions, I move to another
       conference or start one myself.
    
    Fred
    

    
    
    remember, this conference follows the democratic rules:
    
    	moderator opinion(s) = total of all opinions + 1
                   (votes)                   (votes)

    Is that what Marcos said?
    ;-)
    
    Seriously, the moderators are doing a good job in a tough and touchy
    area.
    
    George
    

I would gather that one of the "rules" that 190.0 broke and that the
restatement 190.n didn't is to name names:  names of people, products,
and groups (in the context of a "gripe").  Seems a simple enough rule.

Bob

    re last sentence of .30: at DECville last month, somebody came up
    behind me to say hi one day in the exhibit area.  It was Didier.
    He appears well, and his business seems to be going great guns.
    He said that he's been so busy with projects that he hasn't even
    had time for a vacation this summer.
    
    fyi,
    Jon

    I don't recall any Digital Policy that distinguishes the
    responsibilities of managers from that of employees. Many of the
    policies do state specific responsibilities for specific jobs. 
    I think that the responsibilities are those of all employees. In
    this regard, I don't see a conflict between being a manager and
    either moderating a conference, or active noting.              
                   
    I do, however, think about how my actions will be interpreted by
    others. Because of my seniority (age, length of service, position,
    etc.) I do carefully consider my statements with respect to how
    others might (mis)interpret them. I would like to have a reputation
    as someone who thinks carefully before stating something.
    
    How did I come to this view? [I used to be known as one who often
    made flip comments.] Over a period of years, various more senior
    people (both at work and outside) have shown me the effect my comments
    had on others. They have suggested that the timing of my thoughts
    frequently caused my comments to be mistrusted. They have pointed
    out the differences in interpretation between conversation and the
    written word. ....
    
    NOTing is a new medium. It is somewhere between conversation and
    writing in tone. BUT IT HAS MUCH GREATER LONGEVITY THAN MEMOS! I
    am thankful that some of my injudiciously worded memos from fifteen
    years ago have not survived--but I suspect that my WRU entry will
    be around in the next century. One of the roles of a moderator is
    to help all of us learn how to express our thoughts more carefully.
    And the moderators also can help us see when we inadvertently say
    something that in some way might be misunderstood.
    
    There is no formal assignment of responsibility to a moderator.
    Anymore than there is to a manager or to a corporate consultant
    or to a senior engineer/specialist/.... Every reader of every
    conference has a responsibility to advise an author if a note might
    be injudicious. The only authority we have granted a moderator is
    to be a privileged noter and perform the actions on a note that
    the author can; the moderator is someone we trust to use that power
    carefully.
    
    In the case of DIGITAL, there are a number of individuals that have
    been granted this authority. When someone saw note 190.0 and thought
    it might be injudiciously worded, they notified (some of) the
    moderators as to their concerns. Given that all the moderators have
    jobs, the responsible thing is for the first one notified who has
    a chance to SET the note /HIDDEN. This gives the author a chance
    to reflect on the wording and possibly revise it--as happened in
    this case.

    re: .-1
    
>   			........  Given that all the moderators have
>    jobs, the responsible thing is for the first one notified who has
>    a chance to SET the note /HIDDEN. This gives the author a chance
>    to reflect on the wording and possibly revise it--as happened in
>    this case.

    I think the nail has been hit on the head. Nobody in Digital is
    a full time moderator of a conference. Because of this, the emergency
    action that can be taken is to set the note hidden. This should
    NEVER be considered as censorship etc etc as it is probably done
    in a spare minute between meetings etc etc. Nobody should EVER
    criticise a moderator for setting a note as hidden but give them
    a certain amount of time, say 24 hours, to explain the reason why
    etc etc. Obviously if the reason turns out that there was  no problem
    then all is well, but if a note is set hidden and there is no
    reasonable explanation given within a *reasonable* amount of time
    then I would start asking questions.

    What does concern me is that with the increased 'public' awareness
    of VAXnotes, anybody can become a moderator. Whilst all trouble
    spots seem to have been impeccably handled up to now, I wonder what
    the future holds. Its like giving a non-driver a Ferrari on the
    motorway!. I am lucky, I have been a manager for 13 years and hope
    that some of what I have learnt has 'rubbed off' on the conferences
    that I moderate. Two of the most important skills a manager needs
    to possess is decision making and gaining respect of subordinates.
    I am in no way inferring that moderators are managers or that noters
    are subordinates but rather that if the noters respect the moderator,
    they will rely on that person to 'manage' a conference correctly.

    My tuppence worth
    
    David.
    
        

re .35 -- there is at least one circumstance where a manager (or
employee in general) has specific responsibilities that may prevent
taking part in a notesfile discussion:  the employee may be part
of the open door policy "path" for the problem.  While I'm thinking
here of note 190's raising an issue of management irrusponsibility,
the problem can arise in other work-related conferences, such as
NO_SMOKING.

This is another reason that I suggested we think about a pseudonom
capability -- it lets managers communicate "ex-cathedra" where
circumstances warrant.

Martin.