Conference 7.286::digital

    I haven't seen the reason posted.  I was wondering the same thing. 
    IMO, it was probably for the better.  Seemed to be ratholing.
    
    Jim Morton

    Well there are two ways a note can get write locked.

    1 	A moderator blows his/her cool and write locks the topic
    	permanently or temporarily until tempers cool. Almost inevitably
    	he/she posts a note informing the conference of this and the
    	reasons why.

    2	The author of the base note can also set it write locked if he
    	felt that he was on the losing end of an argument and wanted to opt
    	out without getting any more of a drubbing. In these cases notes of
    	explanation are seldom forthcoming.

    Jamie.

No moderator write-locked 1746.

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

Re:  <<< Note 1749.3 by SCAACT::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow" >>>

>No moderator write-locked 1746.

Then I guess it narrows down the options to the second one suggested in .2  :-)

-  David

    Why is it that no one considered that there might be a "bug" in the 
    notes software? 
    /nasser

RE:.5 by 19584::ABBASI

> Why is it that no one considered that there might be a "bug" in the notes 
> software? 

Because it has happened before.  

Phil

    re: .5
    
>    Why is it that no one considered that there might be a "bug" in the 
>    notes software? 
    
    When you hear hoofbeats think first of horses, not zebras.
    

    ref .7
    >When you hear hoofbeats think first of horses, not zebras.
    
    I dont get it, sorry, what is wrong with zebras? 
    
    plus, what is a hoofbeat any way? 
    
    and how come zebras and horses has anything to do with the hypothesis 
    i put forward that there might be a bug in notes software?
    
    is there a subtle connection here that iam missing? iam confused.

    since we are on the subject of "bugs" , did you notice that the node
    name started showing as the node number in notes file ?
    i think this is a neat feature. i like this bug. please keep it.

    Re .9

    >when did node name change to node number? 

    This occurs when the database has not been loaded with the node names.
    If the conference in question is a closed one you will get rejected as
    not being a member until it is reloaded. I don't think that you would
    consider it so neat then.

    Jamie.

>                       <<< Note 1749.5 by 19584::ABBASI >>>
>                         -< a "bug" in notes software ? >-
> 
>     Why is it that no one considered that there might be a "bug" in the 
>     notes software? 
>     /nasser


I considered that it was a three letter combination alright, but I never
considered it to be a bug!
 

Cheers,

JK

    re: .8

    A hoofbeat is the sound an animal's hoof makes when hitting the ground.

    Horses and zebras are roughly similar in shape and size and thus
    would presumably sound similar when heard galloping.  In this part
    of the world horses are much more common than zebras, so when one
    hears horse/zebra-like hoofbeats the logical reaction is to assume it
    is a horse rather than a zebra until there is some evidence to the
    contrary.

    EDP's history of write-locking notes (as alluded to in 1749.6) 
    notwithstanding, it isn't logical to assume a software bug resulted
    in the note being write-locked until one has determined that all of
    those who can legitimately write-lock the note have not done so.
    While the moderators of this conference have denied doing so, the
    author of 1746.0 has not.

    What note 1746? My directory shows a 1745 and a 1747 but no 1746....
    
    A phantom?

    I wonder who deleted it and why....
    
    Anyway, another issue. In the UK we have a conference that has  entries
    plucked automagically from the Classified Ads section of UK VTX, and
    posted there as notes. In view of the following extract from the memo,
    this conference has been closed down. Surely, there's something wrong
    here, or has my prediction re: non-work-related noting come true
    already?
    
>    Neither the notes conferences nor electronic mail should be used 
>    to solicit other employees.  This prohibition covers efforts to 
>    solicit employees for personal or political gain, to sell or 
>    market goods or services (except authorized marketplace or 
>    discount conferences) and efforts to solicit employees to take 
>    action, sign petitions or support particular causes or candidates.

    Laurie.

    The reason for the deletion of 1746 in this conference is explained by
    a DIGITAL moderator in 1754.0.
    
    The reason SBPUS4::FORSALE is closing is in 957.*, explained by the
    moderator, Keith Edmunds, there.
    
    Any moderator or host is free to close a conference, or delete a note
    if they feel that the conference or note is a violation of the policy.
    
    If you think it isn't and have the resources to host the conference on
    a node, then go ahead.  I believe there's enough ambiguity around the
    word "authorized" to allow a conference devoted to advertising to
    comply with the policy, but that's my opinion.
    
    I don't know what your "prediction" is, but I think you're reading too
    much into a memo that doesn't change the policy regarding the use of
    Digital's computers and networks.
    
    "There's something wrong here" is the sort of statement that engenders
    more fear than insight.

    re: .15
    
    The policy memo does NOT prohibit the sale of goods in VAX Notes
    conferences:
    
>    Neither the notes conferences nor electronic mail should be used 
>    to solicit other employees.  This prohibition covers efforts to 
>    solicit employees for personal or political gain, to sell or 
>    market goods or services (except authorized marketplace or 
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    discount conferences) 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    So, what's an "authorized marketplace" or a "discount conference"
    
    Laurie.

    The usual policies apply.  A system manager decides to host a
    conference, declares the purpose of the conference in the conference
    itself and enters an opening notice in EASYNOTES.  That makes it
    "authorized".

>Neither the notes conferences nor electronic mail should be used 
>to solicit other employees.  This prohibition covers efforts to 
>solicit employees for personal or political gain, to sell or 
>market goods or services (except authorized marketplace or 
>discount conferences).

I read this correctly, John Sims intention is to reiterate Corporate Policy 
that employees should not use Corporate resources to promote non-DEC businesses
for personal gain.

I do not see it as prohibiting employees from selling items they own, to other
employees, as a non-business.

Sometimes the line is extremely fine, and it reminds me of a case where a 
an employee 'desperatley' needed custom sewing work done to his Backpack
and Tent; and when another employee wanted to advertise his Wifes business
(as a Tailor / Seamstress) .. he could not do so under existing Corporate
Policy. (Vested interest of the recommendor). However, any non-related employee
who had used this persons service, could enter a recommendation, since they
did not have a vested interest (business refferal).

I as at first alarmed at the phraseology surrounding 'petitions' and 'politics',
since many people within DEC are very concerned (as is DEC) over the 
Environment everywhere; and it is generally through Petition drives that we
get people involved in what is often a 'political' issue. (Such as putting
airports onto wetlands, conservation issues, wildlife protection). 

It is my opinion the petitions in question are those in support of specific 
political candidates, and rhetoric in opposition to other candidates, to the 
point where it can be a 'business liability issue'.

Sometimes, as a moderator, any decision comes down to this one point:
What is right ? What is the issue onto which I would bet my job ? What
is the breaking point beyond which I might have to explain to the legal
department, my reasons for not taking corrective action ? Is this position
worth the risk ? Most moderators know the pitfalls of being a moderator.
Is is like being a parent, educator, policeman, technologist, diplomat,
judge, jury, lawyer, prophet ... all rolled up into one .. to be sensitive
to issues, personal rights, business liability, legal issues, MIS support ..

I think <mumble> Sweeney hit the nail on the head, when he spoke about a 
moderators decision to delete a conference. Let one with the resource 
take over the conference. It is truly a uniue opportunity to put into
practice the prayer put forth by St Francis of Assissi: (paraphrased)
"Let me change those things I can, Let me learn to accept what I cannot
change, and grant me the wisdom to know the difference."

Bob

    
    From the Boston Globe, 11-Feb-1992
    
    'Living with Work' by Juliet F. Brudney
    
    Quoted w/o permission
    
    Q.  What can I do about a company that has severly damaged my career? 
    After three years of excellent performance ratings, they fired me from
    a hig-tech professional job a few weeks ago with no warning or
    severence pay.  I was forced to leave immediately.
    
      My crime was a statement I put into the employee bulletin board a few
    days earlier criticizing some personnel actions.  Employees always
    sound foo in this vehicle.
    
      Next they tried but failed to stop my unemployment insurance.  Now
    they might appeal.  colleagues willing to give personal references got
    so much pressure from management they were scared off. Job-finding in
    my field is almost impossible without references.  I'm young and this
    was my chief work experience.
                                     IDENTITY WITHHELD

    
    Re: .22
    
    Sounds to me like there was more to this than a posting on a bulletin
    board.
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .22
    
    Not being an American, my knowledge of your laws may be fuzzy, but it
    is generally illegal to actively prevent one from pursuing one's means
    of livlihood.  Laws around this are the reason it is difficult to
    enforce 'no competition' clauses in employee contracts and the like. 
    Your legal system permits lawyers to charge contingency fees, and if
    there was merit to the case (i.e. .22 told ALL the relevant facts) I
    cannot believe it would be that hard to find a competent, hard-working
    attorney looking to build a reputation by taking on Goliath.
    
    So, that's what you do.  Getting proof would be relatively easy...  a
    few phone calls or letters from imaginary potential employers to prove
    the reference angle, a surprise subpoena for the employee files and the
    bulletin board backups.  
    
    

RE: .23
    
>    Sounds to me like there was more to this than a posting on a bulletin
>    board.
    
You might be surprised.  Personnel is Personnel everywhere.  In some 
companies they are the most vindictive bastards you've ever seen and
they often have a lot more power than they do in DEC (i.e. There
are companies where personnel does the hiring for technical positions
without the approval of the "hiring" manager:  Manager provides
requirements - personnel does the interviewing and hiring.)

It is entirely possible that someone made a public criticism of personel
where they have control over the firing.  Someone decided to use his
power to get the person canned.  That employee applies to the state for
unemployment.  Then guess who the state calls to determine the grounds
for loss of employment?  The same bastards in personnel!  They then can
give the person the Edward II treatment all over again and cover their
tail at the same time.

John

    re: 1749.22 "My crime was a statement I put into the employee bulletin
    board a few days earlier criticizing some personnel actions.  Employees
    always sound foo in this vehicle."
    
    What does "sound foo in this vehicle" mean?
    
    (1) We're not getting the company's side of the story.  There may have
    been a real reason to terminate this person's employment.  As usual,
    we're acting as a kangaroo court in judging this company.
    
    (2) The beef this person has would be valid, if the company's own
    policies regarding termination were not followed.  He or she doesn't
    mention that.
    
    (4) I don't know the applicable law in the jurisdiction of "IW", but
    "IW" didn't have an employment contract, then it's hire at will and
    fire at will.  "IW" is free to leave at any time, and the company is
    free to fire him at any time.
    
    (5) Here's the Digital tie-in: Company bulletins boards, conventional
    or computer, are not "first amendment" presses.  So we're back to what
    policies are that the company provides regarding them.  In computer
    bulletin boards, otherwise known as Notes Conferences, there is a
    published policy which defines what's not allowed, and the "process"
    around the content of a conference.
    
    (6) An employee can be terminated for saying (or writing) something
    negative about his employer in public on his own time, etc.  A recent
    court case affirmed this.  I believe Raytheon was the company involved.
 
                                                                           

re: .26    
>    What does "sound foo in this vehicle" mean?
    
probably "foo" = "off" transposed (i.e., typo or dyselxic)
									paul

    
    
    The "sound foo" should have been "sound off" as mentioned in .27. 
    I was minding my four year old granddaughter while entering the quote,
    so maybe dyslexia is contagious.

RE: .24

As far as I know, there is no legal requirement in any country that an
employer who has fired an employee for misconduct give references for that
employee, beyond verifying that the employee was employed at that firm during
the times stated.  Firing for misconduct is not a case of "actively preventing
one from pursuing one's means of livlihood" covered under the laws preventing
such practices.

--PSW

    
    	re .27 "sound foo..."
    
    	Or, in this employee's case, maybe "sound foolish" applies.