Conference 7.286::digital

    Some time back there was a long discussion about the rights and
    wrongs of someone who intervened in a discussion between two DECpeople.
    
    Any one recognise any of .0?
    
    Any one recognise themself?
    
    Jc
    

    Sounds like they've been reading "Digital Review"...
    

    Being an emigrant from Reading, I'll bet I could name it in one.
    
    Richard.

    Charlie Matco should sue.
    
    The English article is even a bad copy of "Charlie's" style
    in Digital Review.  He loves to talk about a pub in Bellevue,
    Washington.  Yeah, right.
    
    Some of his stuff is disinformation which people throw at him. 
    Some of it is stuff which we couldn't pre-announce but really wouldn't
    mind if customers were anxious for.  Some of it is real leaks. 
    Outsiders don't know which is which, either.
    
    I think it's a good funny page. 

    re .4,
    
    Yes, Its the best page in the mag - its got no job ads worth reading
    yet...;-)
    
    Jc

    Re "Disniformation":
    
    _Nobody_ should be talking to a publication except a designated
    company representative (Personnel Policies and Procedures 6.28).
    "Disinformation" also hurts the company and sours its legitimate
    relations with the press.
    
    Re leaks:
    
    Yes, the company is very leaky.  Some examples of ways information
    can leak out:
    
    Employee discussions in public and semi-public circumstances
    (restaurants, pubs, stores, trade shows, etc) of sensitive matters.
    
    Sales personnel who might wish to keep a wavering customer by releasing
    information about unannounced products.
    
    Co-Op students who might wish to "make points" with their instructors.
    
    People who, for whatever reason, give outsiders "internal distribution"
    documents such as _Sales Update_.
    
    There are _lots_ of ways for information to get out.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

>    _Nobody_ should be talking to a publication except a designated
>    company representative (Personnel Policies and Procedures 6.28).

The policy states that "Any requests for information about a particular
business group should be directed to the appropriate management in that
group."

From time to time, group managers may issue "Party Lines."  This information
is public knowledge, and may be released by any employee to anyone.

/john

    re .6:  Another big source of info:  Customers who have been given
    non-disclosure presentations, or who have field test h/w or s/w.
    We will assume that the customers who talk to the Matco's of the
    world are employees who are not aware of the nondisclosure provisions.
    
    Burns
    

    Re .7:
    
    Please note that I didn't specify who the designated company
    representative should be.  However, from Personell Policies and
    Procedures 6.30:
    
    "Every employee is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality
    of information that could jeopardize Digitral's competitive interests
    or patent filings. ..."
    
    "This policy applies to all information presented at seminars,
    conferences, industry standards committees, and any other public
    forum ....  It does not appluy to communications with the press
    (Electronic News, Boston Globe, Computer World, Computer Business
    Daily, etc.)  Press communications must be handled through Digital's
    Public Relations Department."
    
    That seems pretty clear.
    
    I also call your attention to policy 6.06, pages 7 - 8, on ways
    to handle confidentiality.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

re .9

Well, interesting how someone who studies the P&P manual can find a way to
prohibit anything.

It's also interesting that policy 6.28 and 6.30 are so clearly contradictory
of each other, 6.28 stating that general inquiries about the business of the
company must be sent to PR but that specific inquiries about products must
be referred to the project's management, but 6.30 seeming to say that the
PR office has to handle every dealing with the press.

Maybe there's yet another interpretation in this policy mess.

/john

    Aw, shucks, Steve, I thought you were the "official" Charlie Matco
    fool-him agent, with your Groucho nose and glasses on. 

    
    One of the things that strikes me most about rumors is that some
    are so self-evident as to be rediculous. Any moron knows Digital
    * must * be working on faster VAX computers and new uVAX computers!
    
    It is easy to guess at a number of approaches any good group of
    engineers would probably take and put them into print. That is
    a good way of 'smoking' some additional information out of folks
    who wrongly think the publication has some 'special' knowledge.
    

    re: .12

    Not only is the information easy to guess, but it's easy to print as a
    guess.  The Charlie-Matco-clone talked to some DECcies around a pub,
    which is hardly an authoritative source.  Anyone who reads that article
    and thinks they're getting inside information also must pick stock
    quotes from the "National Enquirer" astrology pages.

    Before we go off looking for leaks, why not make sure they are leaks.
    Julius and Ethel Rosenburg were executed for supposedly passing
    information which later turned out to be (1) useless for building
    a bomb and (2) common knowledge that any competent nuclear scientist
    already knew.

    Re .10:
    
    Maybe it's not so contradictory as one might think.  Suppose there's
    an inquiry about a specific product (say, my favorite mythical PDP-13).
   
     1) Suppose it's unannounced.
    
    If that's the case, and someone wants information about it (presuming
    anyone who's non-Digital) one would hope the management would be
    sensible enough to say something on the order of, "Sorry, no such
    product's been announced."
    
     2) Suppose it's been announced (officially, as in press-released).
    
    Then management, usually through a Marketing Communication Manager
    can refer it to the appropriate proper channel: press inquiries,
    to a Publioc Relations representative; consultant inquiries, to
    Consultant Relations; analysts' inquiries to Financial Relations;
    and customer inquiries to the appropriate sales/service group.
    
     2a) Suppose it's "announced" (i.e., appears in Sales Update or
    equivalent, but hasn't been exposed to the public yet).
    
    If a press inquiry (tracking down a rumor), the best choice is the
    Public Relations department.  Otherwise, as 1.
    
    What's so "contradictory" about that?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

The existence of the Firefly multiprocessor mentioned in the quoted article
is public knowledge.  I read about how its cacheing system works in an ACM
publication.

jb