Conference 7.286::digital

    re: .0
    
    Gee, how come we never thought of that? :-)
    
    Seriously, there are some good points about what IBM is doing. 
    It certainly seems that they are true to their cultural roots.
    But it will always limit the true effectiveness of their
    electronic communications mediums of mail and conferencing.
        
    I don't condone prior restraint (censorship), since I feel that
    individuals should be able to say what needs to be said if the
    situation merits it.  But I also believe that the individual is
    fully responsible for *everything* he says, and that there is no
    license to speak before thinking about the consequences.
    
    Digital (evidently unlike IBM) is not a perfect company, and we
    are not perfect employees.  There are some things that can be
    said about us that are unflattering or disparaging, but that are
    nevertheless true.  If we can't speak up about our own problems,
    then we have very little hope of addressing them in a positive
    manner, and fixing them over time.  Simply ignoring or suppressing
    any comments about problems never make the problems go away.
    
    Geoff

    RE: .0
    
    If this doesn't make one feel good about working for DEC, then what
    would. This is one advantage that a "Networked" company like DEC
    will have over a "Hierarchical" company like IBM. 
    
    Banning discussion of non-technical issues is tantamount to banning
    people from having non-technical thoughts. Talk about "1984" and
    the thought police.
    
    In the long run, a companies products reflect there philosophy.
    That's probably why DEC came up with DECNET, and IBM came up with
    SNA. Hopefully through forums like this, we can keep DEC a more
    open and healthy place.
    
    Pat
    

Re: .0

It would seem that IBM could use some heavy-handed moderators to clean
things up.

Lee

    
    Should we lend them a few of ours..?
    
    
    

        Tom Blinn, where are you... :-)
        
        q

	I'm glad my three letter acronym begins with "D". 

These last few replies seem very sarcastic, and you know how we discourage
that sort of thing here....   8^)

You'd better stop, or the men in BLUE will get you....

Another perspective  on  this topic is the question of publicity.
IBM has its conferencing systems as the subject of a Harvard case
study -- used no  doubt at many B-schools -- which reinforces the
level of IBM  awareness in future managers etc.  Has Digital ever
been the  subject  of  such  a  case  study?   Digital's superior
networking and network  applications  won't  do  our clients much
good if the only  items  on  their  purchasing  agenda  are IBM's
products.

John

    re -1., how right ! Did they say 300 notes at IBM .-) ???
    

    
    I understand that Digital has been approached several times with
    offers to be the subject of Harvard B-school case studies, and has
    declined each time.
    
    

    In response to the article in .0:
    
    Yay, there is potential for abuse in any conferenceing system, 
    ie. swearing, bigoted comments and other verbiage which others might
    find offensive.  The question is, what do you do about it?  
    
    Since a conference is something like a meeting, then maybe the incident(s)
    should be treated as if they were spoken in a meeting.  That may
    include some form of reprimand from a superior.  If they were
    anonymous entries, then what would you do if you were having a 
    conversation with a group of strangers and one of them was speaking
    offensively?  I might politely ask them to stop, and if they didn't, 
    I'd probably either ignore them or leave the conversation altogether.
    
    Really, out of all the notes that you've read in our conferencing
    system, how much of it do you find offensive to the point that you
    would suggest censorship?  I think in those rare instances, the
    Moderators do a good job of putting an end to the problem.  
    
    As for the IBM business school issue, I kind of like the idea that
    DEC is not being studied as a company with employees that abuse 
    their computer conferencing system.  Maybe that's because the problem
    really isn't there to study, and that, I think, is good publicity!
    
    Dave
    

re Note 808.11 by ROULET::GAUTHIER:

>     As for the IBM business school issue, I kind of like the idea that
>     DEC is not being studied as a company with employees that abuse 
>     their computer conferencing system.  Maybe that's because the problem
>     really isn't there to study, and that, I think, is good publicity!
  
        Silence is "good publicity"?

        Bob

re Note 808.10 by CSG002::MEDEIROS:

>               -< No great esteem for B-school types in this firm >-

        What better way to condescend to the benighted at the
        B-school than to let them see how it should be done?  (We do
        agree that we are doing it the right way, correct?)

        Bob

    Keep any transfers from IBM far, far away from SOAPBOX
    
    Heart attack city :-0

    RE .12,
    
    The lack of a problem is good.                    
    
    If these Harvard B school students are in keeping with their
    reputation, they would probably research other companies (DEC)
    and draw their own conclusions from the "silence".
                                                         
    DG
    
    

>< Note 808.14 by SA1794::CHARBONND "I'm the NRA" >
>
>    Keep any transfers from IBM far, far away from SOAPBOX
>    Heart attack city :-0

As a recent transfer from IBM, my biggest shock coming to DEC was the
number of non-business related conferences and the exchange that went on in
some of them (such as Soapbox). I remember at least a few times at IBM
having notes returned to me from the Science-Fiction conference because
they did not deal with the future as related to IBM's business
opportunities. 

Of course now that I am indoctrinated with DEC culture, I see the value of
moderator-controlled free speech. 

    It's not "moderator-controlled"
    It's not "free speech"
    
    It's "open discussion related to Digital's business, employee
    interests, and valuing employees differences"
    
    It's "sustained by moderators who implement policies appropriate to the
    conference topics"

    re: .17
    
>    It's "sustained by moderators who implement policies appropriate to the
>    conference topics" 
 
    "Sustained"?
    
    -joe tomkowitz

re:  808.2 by RICKS::KAGER >
     
>    In the long run, a companies products reflect there philosophy.
>    That's probably why DEC came up with DECNET, and IBM came up with
>    SNA. Hopefully through forums like this, we can keep DEC a more
>    open and healthy place.

Can somebody comment on the history of DECNET? It's my understanding 
that it began as an engineering hack, a "midnight" project from the 
days when such efforts were encouraged.

Had it began as a management directive, we could very well have had 
another SNA.

When I draw up my list of reasons to feel good about working for DEC, 
DECNET heads the list. It's lovely technology.

walt

    I don't think DECnet itself was a "midnight hack" (but I could be
    wrong).
    
    However, DEC's Engineering Network did begin life in that manner.
    It just sort of grew from a couple of machines in the Mill.  

    DECnet was definitely not a midnight hack.  I was a junior member of
    the committee that designed DDCMP---my job was to implement the latest
    proposal, and bring the results to the next meeting.  Later parts of
    DECnet were also done with formal proposals, meetings which kept minutes, 
    and votes.
    
    On the previous question, when we were designing routing and connection
    initiation, it never occurred to us that a centralized system would be
    a good design.  Brainstorming on routing was done using the "nine-node
    net", and making sure that the routing algorithms would handle the loss
    of any one node, or any one link.
        John Sauter

Re: .20

Actually it started in Merrimack.

jb

    re.-.0

    Our management has informed us that DIGITAL is about to do the
    same thing with NOTES.  We have been informed that soon all
    non-business related notes conferences will have bee taken off systems!
    I can't believe that corporate management would do something like
    this, I would think it would be up to local management and whether or
    not notes conferences were taking up too much space on their systems.

    This means that this notes conference is in jeapordy!

    Has anyone else heard anything.

    I am with a corporate organization so our 'rumours' don't tend to
    come down from a land far far away........
    

    This conference is not in jepardy, since it is work-related.
        John Sauter

        Rumors like the one in .23 have been spread before, and they
        have consistently been proven unfounded.  That doesn't mean
        that some group may decide that they don't want conferences
        that are not in direct support of their business hosted on
        the systems they manage.  That has happened, too.  If you have
        some basis for the rumor, please share it with us.  Otherwise,
        please avoid spreading it.  It demoralizes people, and it is
        counterproductive.
        
        Tom

    My manager, in a team meeting said that he had been told by his manager
    that all non-business related notes files will soon be vanishing from
    systems throughout the corporation.  When questioned further, my
    manager said that was all the information he had been given.  He
    indicated this to the team not as a 'rumour', TOM, but FACT.  We are
    only 2 managers removed from Don Busiek.

    We have non-business related notes files on our systems and have not
    been told to get rid of them.
    
    

    Facts which are "told" are rumors.

    Facts which are implemented are facts.

    Facts which are sent in memo form over the telephone are faxed.

RE: 808.25

>        Rumors like the one in .23 have been spread before, and they
>        have consistently been proven unfounded.  That doesn't mean
>        that some group may decide that they don't want conferences
>        that are not in direct support of their business hosted on
>        the systems they manage.  That has happened, too.  If you have
>        some basis for the rumor, please share it with us.  Otherwise,
>        please avoid spreading it.  It demoralizes people, and it is
>        counterproductive.

Tom, I agree that we don't need people spreading rumors through this 
conference.  While I engage in speculation as much as the next person, I 
would fear the existence of the conference would be endangered if the 
moderators allowed it to become yet another extension of our already 
healthy rumor mill.

However...

The employee who entered the reply in .23 heard the information from his
manager in a team meeting.  Are you saying that we can't believe what our
immediate management tells us in an official forum?  Are you telling us
that such information should be considered rumor and treated as such?  If
that is indeed what you're saying (and it sure sounded like it to me) then
I would ask you a question in return: Just what is it we Digital employees
CAN believe these days????? 

							Pat

> .........................................................................
>that is indeed what you're saying (and it sure sounded like it to me) then
>I would ask you a question in return: Just what is it we Digital employees
>CAN believe these days????? 
>
>							Pat
>

	Well, last year at about this time, we all believed Plan A was dead 
and buried, didn't we?   That came from a very high level of management.  Just 
enough of us didn't "believe" it, and got the right peoples' attention for a 
rational discussion.  

	I "hear" lots of things from managers that never amount to anything.  
Like the Plan A thing, if the right level of management hears rational 
arguments from the IC's, a rational solution will be found.  Believe it!

re.-23
>>        Our management has informed us that DIGITAL is about to do the
>>    same thing with NOTES.  We have been informed that soon all
>>    non-business related notes conferences will have bee taken off systems!


    Ok, I guess I get to answer my own 'rumour'.  I pinned down one of my
    managers (not the one that gave us this info) and asked where this
    was coming from.  He was gracious enough to send me the mail message
    he had received.  When I got it, low and behold it was the BEL CROSS
    memo discussed in note 111.

    I'm goin to consider information from the manager who informed us that
    'the sky is falling' null and void.  This memo has been well discussed
    in note 111 and our management has deemed that our conferences fall
    within the guidelines of this memo and personnel policies.

    michael

Michael, thanks for tracking that down and graciously sharing it.
It seems a poignant response to the question, "you mean I can't
believe everything I hear from a real honest-to-goodness manager?"

Although "personell" issues, like harassment, are most often
cited as reasons that notesfiles might (and have been) shut
down, in fact, I think the greatest threat of all to the overall
non-work noting environment is the mis-use of the medium to
broadcast messages that were intended for a different sort of
dissemination.

Although I must sound like an old, tired record by now, information
shared in a meeting, or a memo, or a conversation, even if not
strictly "classified" or "routed" is often NOT intended to be
broadcast without control to the entire Digital Community.

I'll also repeat that I believe management has a right to expect
that the informal communication systems will be used, but will
be used responsibly, sensibly, and appropriately.

Posting any note in an unrestricted conference is like running
to the top of the nearest hill with the lastest [information !
rumour ! fact ! memo] and SHOUTING it to the world.

It's _very_ different than gradual dissemination of information
through the community by a process of diffusion.  The latter
process tends to move information to those likely to need to
know, and those who share a similar context.  Writing here,
alternatively, is totally undifferentiated.  There is no sensing
of the audience, no positioning or interpretation of anything
less than a total global/corporate 120,000 employee forum.

A "mindset" that can help:

	When you post to such a conference you are writing
	a "letter to the editor" that is guaranteed to be
	published (possibly quickly retracted, but not before
	publishing), and which is available to EVERYBODY.

I take more care in constructing a letter to the Boston Globe
or the Wall Street Journal than I do in chatting with a cubemate.

It's a "thimk!  This is an OPEN mike situation.  120,000 folks
cannot be considered a "family" ... we're more like a small
country (with a GNP that exceeds many countries with orders of
magnitude more citizens).

- greg

    
re: <<< Note 808.31 by STAR::ROBERT >>>

> It's _very_ different than gradual dissemination of information
> through the community by a process of diffusion.  The latter
> process tends to move information to those likely to need to
> know, and those who share a similar context.
    
    What you seem to perceive as a drawback (rapid dissemination of
    information) is what I consider the most powerful argument *for*
    having computer conferencing in the first place.  For a company
    to be successful in today's marketplace, information of *all* types
    has to be gathered and disseminated in a very short timeframe.
    
    You are pointing to a symptom, not the disease.  The symptom is that
    the Company (read management) has not really adjusted to the idea of
    using conferencing to speed up the information flow, at least for any
    purpose other than technical support.  But great numbers of employees
    have become acclimated to the use of conferencing as a tool, and are
    using as a workaround to the "normal channels".  This same phenomenon
    manifested itself five or six years ago when electronic mail came into
    widespread use in the Field.  I often got information several days or
    even weeks before my management chain did, because many of them were
    reluctant to use electronic mail, preferring instead the hardcopy memo.
    This problem still persists to this day.
    
    The solution?  You can't go back, so go forward.  If they abolished all
    non-techical notefiles tomorrow, I have no doubt that most people would
    go back to the previous mechanism of e-mail forwarding to accomplish
    pretty much the same purpose, with an even greater amount of overhead
    on our computer resources.  I still have copies of VAXmail messages
    that have forwarding headers numbering in the hundreds.  The real
    answer is to work on a constructive approach to using Notes as a
    corporate communications tool for *all* information.  It will mean that
    management will have to learn to react even faster to new information,
    since the lag time between when managers receive information and when
    employees do will get even smaller.  If that doesn't happen, Notes will
    be the least of the company's problems.  Today, fortunes are won and
    lost on Wall Street because someone read a memo or phone message thirty
    minutes too late.  I see that this trend will manifest itself in all
    facets of the business world, and we must learn to deal with the best
    that we can.
    
    Geoff
    

I'm arguing for approrpiate dissemination --- not fast or slow, not
complete or incomplete.

If you think about it for a minute you'll realize the company generates
many orders of magnitude more information per day than you could process
in a year, probably in your life.

I'll take quality and correctness over speed and volume any day.

Of course it's good when we have fast channels --- if we use them
right.  If we use them wrong then their speed is a liability, not
an asset.

Spreading rumours faster doesn't help.  Forwarding memos to people
who will misunderstand them (because they haven't been given the
context, or because they shouldn't have it, or because context was
assumed in concert with the assumed audience) doesn't help.

- greg

    re:  <<< Note 808.33 by STAR::ROBERT >>>

>I'll take quality and correctness over speed and volume any day.

>Of course it's good when we have fast channels --- if we use them
>right.  If we use them wrong then their speed is a liability, not
>an asset.
    
    Again, I have to ask:  Aren't you pointing to a symptom?  You seem to
    be blaming the tool and not tool-user.  Your argument could be used
    against almost any communications system, even the telephone, because
    it's essentially the GIGO law:  Garbage In, Garbage Out.
    
>Spreading rumours faster doesn't help.  Forwarding memos to people
>who will misunderstand them (because they haven't been given the
>context, or because they shouldn't have it, or because context was
>assumed in concert with the assumed audience) doesn't help.

    I certainly agree with you here.  What *would* help is for *all*
    of the employees of this company learning to use the tool to our
    collective advantage.  What we've seen so far is that the lower
    ranks have learned to utilize the tool, while the upper ranks have
    failed to set any real direction, or even a good example.  Now they
    seem to be reacting with blanket restrictions in place of directions,
    and it is causing confusion among the ranks.  I know I'm confused!
    
    Geoff
    
    

re: .34

Of COURSE I'm blaiming the tool user, not the tool.  Sorry to
be unclear.  I LOVE notes.  I see significant mis-use --- that
mis-use is paltry compared with good-use, but even an occassional
error can have significant repercussions.

- greg