Conference 7.286::digital

>   FWIW, I have been told that ANY mail (especially from managers,
>    anyone in perceived authority) is fair game for posting in a notes
>    file WITHOUT permission.  
 
	First off, this is most assuridly *NOT* the case. It is wrong wrong
	wrong to post any mail that is not implisitly or explicitly clearly
	indicated as for general consumption in a Notes conference. If you
	post private mail WITHOUT the senders permission almost all good
	moderators will return it to you ASAP. This is not a nice thing to
	do. There is alot of discussion about this in the Etiquette conference
	at HUMAN::ETIQUETTE. (Hit KP7 to add)

	People have been recieving mail warning them about making entries
	in conferences as long as there have been conferences. I have gotten
	my share in my time. I usually concider who sent it, what there reason
	for sending it was, and what Note it was in relationship to. Mail
	that appears mearly threatening I tend to ignore. Mail regarding notes
	that are in contriversial conferences on contriversial issues does
	cause me to re-read what I wrote though.

	Some people have made comments in conferences that were clearly
	carrier limiting. Admitting to illegal or unethical activity for
	example. Other people have made remarks about their managers which
	while they may be true and valid are not likely to inder them with
	said manager. This can be said to be a career limiting move as
	even if one wins that battle it will make other managers more, how
	shall I say this, careful when dealing with that person. There are
	battles better fought in private then in public.

	It's been suggested on more then one occasion and by more then one
	person that people should regard every Notes they write as being 
	part of there resume. If you don't want your name associated with
	something you say then think twice before you say it.

			Alfred

    
    My question is - how prevalent is it that someone posting in a
    notes file is sent mail saying not to say any more?  I understand
    if it is an opinion about an individual but what about a program
    (i.e. plan A or SAVE)?  
    
    Patti
    

    If you're looking for horror stories, rest assured that there are
    some, but they certainly aren't going to be mentioned here, now
    are they?
    
    DEC may be a superlative company, but it's employees are only human!

>>   FWIW, I have been told that ANY mail (especially from managers,
>>    anyone in perceived authority) is fair game for posting in a notes
>>    file WITHOUT permission.  
 
 >	First off, this is most assuridly *NOT* the case. It is wrong wrong
 >	wrong to post any mail that is not implisitly or explicitly clearly
 >	indicated as for general consumption in a Notes conference.

    Actually, the first statement is TRUE in the eyes of personnel, although
    it is NOT CONSIDERED GOOD NOTES ETIQUETTE. We had a case in a file that I
    moderate where the other moderator sent someone some mail in an attempt
    to put some water on the flames that person was fueling, and the person
    posted that mail in the file. Let's just say that personal was
    consulted  (both the moderator's personal person and the noter's
    personal person) and both personal people said (independently of
    talking to one another) that the receiver of the mail is the owner, and
    has the right to so with it what he or she pleases, so long as it isn't
    some kind of restricted distribution. I didn't believe it either until
    I heard it with my own ears.

    Now, that having been said, while you might have the RIGHT to do that,
    it is not considered very polite to re-post or forward something with
    out the author's permission, and in the case that it is mail from your
    manager, I think that doing so could be considered real UNWISE.

    Deb

       
       
       
       RE: .5
       
       	Then people who are discussing potentially hot topics in Mail
       should set their Mail Personal Name to "Restricted Distribution
       ONLY" and then see what Personnel has to say.
       
       	Personnel is WRONG in this instance. The difference between a mail
       message and a letter is the media it is stored on. (Paper .vs.
       Magnetic)
       
       						mike

    Mike, 
    
    we might not like what personnel said about it, but the fact is, my
    personnel rep researched it (although I don't remember the exact policy
    number); that doesn't make personnel WRONG and the statement had nothing
    to do with the medium that it was stored on (paper of elecronic); the
    point was that the instant that it left you  (either via the key that you
    hit to send it or the mailbox you dropped it into), it ceased to be
    yours and became "owned" by the recipient.
    
    Deb

    Re: .7
    
    Note that .7 is consistent with what happens if you drop something into
    the U.S. Mail. The person who gets it, owns it. To what extent a
    copyright is retained is a different matter. 

    Yes this notion that "You cannot post anything you receive with
    out the authors permission" is a self-serving myth that has been
    drummed up on the Enet over the past year by the more heavy-handed
    moderators.  It provides a degree of protection to the rantings
    of many of the higher placed management and engineers of this company
    that they have neither earned nor deserve.
    
    If someone sends you something that is not job related and marked 
    "Restricted Distribution", "Eyes only", "Personal and Confidential",
    or somesuch, then friends you OWN IT.  Upon reciept, the adressee is 
    the owner of and is completely repsonsible for non-confidential 
    communications.  The same thing is true of postings in non-restricted 
    notes files.  Whether it is on paper or electrons means nothing.

    re: -1
    
    What logical distinction can be made between mail sent to you marked
    "restricted distribution" and entries in restricted conferences?
    I sure don't see any.
    
    Al
    

re .5:

Whyever would one ask Personnel?

If I had to name a group within DEC which was least likely to use or understand
Notes, I would probably pick Personnel.

This may seem a bit pedantic, but I think of the Notes culture as one of my
favourite aspects of DEC, and also as one of the reasons for our success.
Notes culture is antithetical to paternalism and hierarchy - and handed-down
rulings. That's why I feel that everyone should do their best to keep
Personnel OUT of Notes. OK, so now they know it exists, we blew it - but let's
not aggravate matters by inviting them to tell us how to use Notes!

--Tom

        re .11 and "Whyever would one ask Personnel?"
        
        Suppose I wrote a note in a conference that annoyed you
        for some reason (say, I insulted your religious beliefs,
        you, your family, something like that).  Suppose further
        that you contacted me, then the conference moderators,
        and neither I nor the moderators were willing to remove
        the note.
        
        What would you do next?
        
        I suspect that in most cases, an individual in this situation
        would turn to Personnel.
        
Jim Stratton

    re .12
    
>    re .11 and "Whyever would one ask Personnel?" 
>        
>    Suppose I wrote a note in a conference that annoyed you for some reason
>    (say, I insulted your religious beliefs, you, your family, something
>    like that).  Suppose further that you contacted me, then the conference
>    moderators, and neither I nor the moderators were willing to remove the
>    note. 
>        
>    What would you do next?
    
    As a grownup (and, apparently, speaking only for myself these days) I'd
    either: 
    
    	A) Ignore it.
    
    	   or
    
    	B) Write a rebuttal in the same conference that it appeared.
    
    Then again, I'm the kind of guy whose first response to a boring
    TV show is to change the channel, not to call the station.
    
    -joe tomkowitz

    re .11
    
    On the contrary Tom, I think if more personnel people involved
    themselves in the real world of DEC, Notes being a big part of that
    real world, they might be in a better position of understanding
    their customer base, the employees.
    
    I find the gross generalizations of personnel people offensive at
    time, but have to admit they are not always without merit. As a
    personnel person myself I can only hope there are others who can
    look outside their 4 walls and get a grip on what the real concerns
    of the employees are. One way to do that is through Notes.
    
    >That's why I feel that everyone should do their best to keep
    >Personnel OUT of Notes.
    
    Responses from personnel to issues in this file are helpful to us
    all. Wanting to exclude the very people that might be able to provide
    answers to questions raised here sounds quite counterproductive.

    This file is an exchange of ideas, not just a sounding board. What
    good are you doing by just bitching amongst yourselves. None of
    course, the issues raised here are valid and need to be addressed
    by someone that can do something about them. That someone often
    resides in a personnel function.
    
    Gail

    The only thing that worries me about Personnel getting to understand
    conferences and what they are used for is that the first thing they
    would probably do is create Notes Policies and Procedures manual. Not a
    pleasant thought.
    
    -Glenn-

Sounds like maybe we need a topic on the presence of Digital Personnel
in Digital notes? :-)

re: .14
    
>    Responses from personnel to issues in this file are helpful to us
>    all. Wanting to exclude the very people that might be able to provide
>    answers to questions raised here sounds quite counterproductive.
>

Poll: how many people in the last 6 months have got their questions
      answered correctly by any of the following: DEC personnel, the IRS, or
      their accountant? Which of the three has answered the most questions
      correctly?


>    This file is an exchange of ideas, not just a sounding board. What
>    good are you doing by just bitching amongst yourselves. None of
>    course, the issues raised here are valid and need to be addressed
>    by someone that can do something about them. 
                                                    

>						   That someone often
>    resides in a personnel function.

That's it! I think you stated the problem perfectly. :-)

    What do the last few replys have to do with this topic?  If you
    want to discuss Personnel, please start a new topic note.
           
    Patti
    

    Re .9:
    
    > Yes this notion that "You cannot post anything you receive with
    > out the authors permission" is a self-serving myth that has been
    
    It is "should not", not "cannot", and it is etiquette rather than
    regulation.
    
    > If someone sends you something that is not job related and marked
    > "Restricted Distribution", "Eyes only", "Personal and Confidential", or
    > somesuch, then friends you OWN IT.
    
    That's not true.  One way to make that perfectly clear is to write up a
    message at home, on one's own time and paper.  In that case, the author
    owns the copyrights to it.  If they then come in to Digital and send
    the message to a person, the author still retains all of the
    copyrights.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .18:
    
>    > Yes this notion that "You cannot post anything you receive with
>    > out the authors permission" is a self-serving myth that has been
>    
>    It is "should not", not "cannot", and it is etiquette rather than
>    regulation.

    It is stated by hte moderators who believe in their right to gratuitous
    censorship as "MAY NOT".  And their practice has given it the effect
    of regulation in those conferences, not courtesy.  Etiquette is
    a matter of choice, which this policy has often not allowed.
    
>    That's not true.  One way to make that perfectly clear is to write up a
>    message at home, on one's own time and paper.  In that case, the author
>    owns the copyrights to it.  If they then come in to Digital and send
>    the message to a person, the author still retains all of the
>    copyrights.

    Wrong, Eric. The receiver now owns that copy.  "Copyright" refers
    to the commercial rights to creative content.  If I buy a book I
    do own that book, but I do not own the copyrights to that book (ie.
    the right to copy it for commerical purposes, or in ways that might
    evade the copyright owners commercial rights.)  It does not however
    preclude all copying of material.  The vast majority of all
    communications by us in this country (and in the whole world) are
    never copyrighted.  Indeed much of it is (and has been judged) as
    unworthy of being copyrighted, if for no other reason than lack
    of creative content.
    
    Finally, even copyrighted material may be used, without permission,
    for various purposes; reviews, news, courts, and for the examination
    of issues of public concern.  The copyright is meant to protect
    the commercial rights of the creator.  It is not meant to protect
    people who issue asinine missives from public exposure.
    
    --  Barry

    < Note 744.19 by DWOVAX::YOUNG "Sharing is what Digital does best." >

>    of issues of public concern.  The copyright is meant to protect
>    the commercial rights of the creator.  It is not meant to protect
>    people who issue asinine missives from public exposure.
>    
>    --  Barry

    Very succinctly put.
    
    Copyrights and the right to privacy are entirely different.  Where
    copyrights are legislated for strictly commercial reasons, the "right
    to privacy" is what everyone seems to be arguing here.  Many courts
    have found that the "right of privacy" of an individual is very often
    contingent upon the diligence of the individual in protecting his
    own privacy.  For instance, you can't take a bath in open view on
    your own property and decry anyone who happens to see you as a
    "Peeping Tom".  You have to take some measure to prevent others
    from invading your privacy by casual actions.  The same holds
    true for written correspondence, telephone calls, and other forms
    of personal communications.  Simply reference the federal laws on
    wiretapping, and you will find that BOTH parties in a telephone
    call have the independent right to record and use the conversation,
    with or without notice to the other party!
    
    I don't think that it's polite to publish something that you may
    have received as a private communication that you feel might cause
    embarrassment or hardship to the person who wrote it.  That person
    would have every right not to trust you with sensitive personal
    information again.  But I don't think it's a criminal offense either.
    When someone volunteers information to you, without any agreed-upon
    restrictions, the information is your to do with as you will.

        Geoff 

    What's all this stuff about what you "can" and "can't" do in
    a notesfile?
    
    No-one knows except us.
    
    We are the citizens of notedom (Notre Dom?), and if you've got this
    far then you probably know more about how the system should be working
    than those who merely pontificate as outsiders.
    
    So if "we" say that it's offensive to post material without the
    express permission of the originator, then that's how it's going
    to be.   Isn't that how democracy works?  Yes, there will be
    disagreements.  But the will of the people shall prevail.
    
    OK, so the rhetoric was over-inflated, but you get the gist,
    no?  Stop worrying about people telling you what you can and can't do,
    and just behave decently.

    Re .19:
    
    > It is stated by hte moderators who believe in their right to gratuitous
    > censorship as "MAY NOT".  And their practice has given it the effect
    > of regulation in those conferences, not courtesy.
    
    Well then, if it is regulation, it is not the myth you said it was.
    
    > Wrong, Eric. The receiver now owns that copy.
    
    I am not wrong, because I said "copyright", not "copy".  The author
    owns the copyrights.  The receiver owns one copy, and one copy only.
    That copy may be transformed into another version if that is
    appropriate for its use (e.g., printed once for reading).  It may not
    be copied generally otherwise, such as posting it to a conference. 
    
    > "Copyright" refers to the commercial rights to creative content.
    
    "Copyright" refers to the right to copy, and the copyright law
    explicitly applies to unpublished works, including those not for
    commercial purposes.
    
    > It does not however preclude all copying of material. 
    
    It precludes ALL copying EXCEPT that permitted by the copyright law,
    e.g. copying when necessary for use (as copying a program into main
    memory for execution), copying for appropriate educational purposes,
    copying short excerpts, et cetera.  Posting to Notes conferences is not
    mentioned in the copyright law.
    
    > The vast majority of all communications by us in this country (and in
    > the whole world) are never copyrighted.
    
    That is a common misconception.  EVERY work which can be protected by
    copyrights IS protected by copyrights the moment it is written (unless
    prior written contract provides otherwise) and continuing until the
    moment the copyright expires or is nullified (as by publication without
    copyright notice or by explicit submission to the public domain).
    
    > Finally, even copyrighted material may be used, without permission,
    > for various purposes; reviews, news, courts, and for the examination of
    > issues of public concern. 
    
    As I said, Notes is not included.  Patents have strict requirements for
    creativity; copyrights are more liberal.  That's one reason "Happy
    Birthday" is protected by copyright. 
    
    
    				-- edp

Following up on .22 - which basically gets the facts of copyright law correct
(and if anything the recent approval by the US of the Berne Convention makes
the regulations even stricter), there is a more fundamental issue here:  Some
authors of previous notes seem to believe that the "author owns the writing"
policy is an invention of notesfile moderators for their convenience in the
new electronic age.  False.  The general convention for PAPER letters has always
been that their ownership, to a large extent, remains with the author.  It is
NOT transferred to the recipient.  Common rules of practice - ettiquette -
have generally forbidden direct use of material from privately posted letters
without the permission of the author.  That's why things like contest descrip-
tions usually say explicitly that entries become the property of the organiza-
tion running the contest.

In most cases, these questions are never raised in court, so the law remains
fuzzy.  But cases do arise, as when the estates of famous people try to get
back copies of the letters those people sent out during their lifetime.  They
often succeed, though I'm sure the law here is very unsettled.

							-- Jerry

    RE: .11

>Whyever would one ask Personnel?

    Without getting into the details of the specific situation, a new
    reader (and new employee, I might add), came into a particular
    conference, did some name calling, enraged the most participants in
    that conference, and when nicely asked to tone down the postings by a
    moderator, declared that the moderator's act was one of discrimination
    and harassment, and informed that moderator that the moderators were
    being brought to personnel. Well, when someone tells you that they are
    taking you to personnel, the intelligent thing to do is to gather all of
    your facts and go see your personnel rep ASAP, regardless of whether the
    charges are legitimate (and in this case, personnel said that they
    weren't). This particular question came up in the course of telling our
    personnel rep what went on.

    I'm really sorry to see all of the personnel bashing that is going on in
    this note. My rep is real good, he's gone the extra yard for me several
    times. 

    Deb 

	Re:  .0
	
	No, i  have  not  found  that  posting notes, even on a sensitive
	topic, results in "don't do it - it's career limiting" mail.
	
	I was active  in  the  discussion  of Plan A back in Note 565.  I
	never received any threatening mail.  On the contrary, i received
	a steady flow of very  supportive  mail.    I  also received many
	supportive phone calls and personal visits.  
	
	It's O.K.  to discuss tough  questions  or  sensitive issues.  In
	fact, it's good to do so.   The  only  thing  to  avoid  is being
	irrational  or  otherwise unprofessional.  Avoid personal attacks
	and harassment.  Be sure to follow Digital's policies on employee
	conduct and valuing differences.  
	
	But by all means, participate.  -- harrY