Conference 7.286::digital

    Dave,
    
    I set the note hidden, as you well know by the mail you received from me
    explaining why. If you insist, I CAN delete your note, but I didn't want
    to do that yet.
    
    The note was set hidden because there is a corporate policy of having the 
    authors permission first before posting their mail in a notes conference. I
    have not seen that permission - (all I need is mail from the author
    saying he has the permission, that way if Jack comes to us, we can
    produce a document saying the author stated he had permission)
    
    As you know by the mail you received, I set the rest of the topic
    hidden so that when we get the permission, you won't have to re-enter
    your note - I could have deleted the whole topic and returned it, but
    choose to create EXTRA work for myself to save you from having to
    repost (your welcome!!)...
    
    I'm a little discouraged that you started this topic for (again) a
    moderator bashing note, but if you REALLY feel you must, go ahead, I'll
    be on a business trip for three days, so won't have to read it until
    then :-)...
    
    
    Gale (co-mod)
    
    

    re: .1
    
    If we all lived by the LETTER of all the rules in this company, instead
    of the SPIRIT, there would be no company to worry about.
    
    I can just see it now, "I'm sorry Mr. Sales Rep, but your request
    wasn't EXACTLY according to the rules, so I'm cancelling your visit to
    my ACT and that's just too bad about the multi-million dollar order
    that is dependent upon your visit.  Better luck next year."
    
    Bob

    Re .2
    
    Either you and I think alike or you just read my 'moan' in the MOANS
    conference on this issue. You've just stated the problem more
    succinctly than I did there.
    
    Dave

The first thing I wanted to do when I saw that 'hidden' note was to criticize 
the moderators and I didn't have any idea what the note was about. Now that I 
do know, I'm even more pissed.

Here's a controversial suggestion:

	Abolish the role of moderator for all the notes files and watch
	Digital's productivity skyrocket. Many of you must have read the recent 
	Employee Involvement communication from John Sims; its say to "Do What 
	is Best for Digital". As Digital employees, we are to be trusted and
	we don't need notes 'police' to make sure we follow the rules. We each 
	need to make our own decision as to what's best for Digital and If I
	put an inappropriate note in here or any other notes conference, its my
	responsibility and no one elses.

I have been a moderator and have been no more than an organizer and 
administrator, not an enforcer or censor; as far as I'm concerned there is no 
need to give this handful of people the power trip of hiding or deleting the 
notes entries of fellow employees.

Jim

    RE .-1
    
    Well, that's all very well, but no-one really "give[s] this handful
    of people the power trip...".   Moderatorship is not an official 
    position.
    
    The way it works is that someone or someones decide to create a
    notesfile, and they, the creators, decide what the rules for 
    the conference are - specifically, whether they need a moderator
    wielding the act of censorship or not.   They may very well
    choose to select other moderators to assist them, but in the end
    the decision very properly rests with the system manager of
    the host machine.
    
    So I think you have to abide by the rules of any given conference.
    That's not to say you shouldn't lobby to have them changed - perhaps
    if you demonstrate majority sentiment is on your side, the moderators
    will relax a little.
    
    You are also, of course, perfectly welcome to set up your own
    conference (subject to the whims of your system manager, maybe).
    You can even set up a rival to DIGITAL.NOTE; presumably, market
    forces will operate the way they're supposed to, and people will
    choose the one which they prefer.
    
    
    Having established that I think that file ownership gives one
    absolute say-so over policy (subject only to the rules of
    decent civilized conduct, and I suppose DEC policy), then I'd
    like to add that I think that censorship is generally ridiculous,
    and in the particular case of the Smith memo headed "for wide
    distribution", it was doubly so.  

    Strange. Some 'kind' soul, must have been a moderator
    since no one else has the privs to do so, modified my .3 note so that a KP7
    would open the MOANS conference. I'm not sure how I feel about my
    notes being 'fiddled' with. No big deal, but I did notice!
    
    Dave

         This is odd.  If "For Wide Distribution" is not a clear granting
    of permission, then what is it?
    
                                        Greg

    re: .3
    
    I don't follow MOANS, so I guess we think alike.
    
    Bob

	All this fuss would never have happened if Jack Smith's
	memo had been headed "DISTRIBUTION: ALL EMPLOYEES", rather
	than "For Wide Distribution". The phrase he used is actually
	meaningless, as "wide" is qualitative not quantitative.

	Of course, if we all had the confidence to "do what's right",
	then Jacks's phrasing would be suitable. Maybe he doesn't
	realize how much paranoia is endemic among the rank and file,
	or how many policies have sprung up of recent years which
	are heavily salted with phrases like "immediate termination".

	You can't have it both ways. Empowerment does not mix with
	heavy handed corporate edicts. As the Soviets have recently
	discovered, entrepreneurship does not flourish in the shadow
	of the KGB.

	Robert Townsend tells an amusing tale in "Up the Organization"
	of a small bunch of people who set up their own company. At the
	first meeting, it was decided that they would have an informal
	culture, and set as few rules as possible. The discussion then
	turned to the desirability of a dress code, and one enthusiast
	suggested "Let's have a rule that nobody wears ties!"

	"No", said the president. "That would be a dress code. People
	can wear what they like - ties or no ties".

	/Tom

    Without moderators who take the responsibility placed upon them
    by the corporation seriously, many conferences, such as this one,
    would not be allowed to exist.  Those of you who think that all
    a moderator needs to do is "organize" obviously haven't been
    called by angry vice presidents or been told by Personnel to
    shut down your conference.
    
    Moderators are volunteers.  Very few take on the responsibility 
    out of a sense of being on a "power trip".  Those of us who
    put in the time and energy to moderate high-tension conferences
    such as this one do so because it is a way we can contribute to
    the good of Digital and to the benefit of its employees.
    
    And putting up with topics like this one is part of the job.
    
    			Steve

    
    	A message with the header "For wide distribution" is meant
    	to be posted ... especially when it deals with company hap-
    	penings.
    
    	If Jack didn't want it spread around anywhere, he probably
    	wouldn't have included that particular phrase.  Instead, he
    	might have used something like "Confidential".
    
    	Sounds simple to me, but oh well.
    
    							GTI
    

    A big part of the problem is that people don't fully label their
    mail. Usually they don't need to. What they send is clearly for a
    small group or for wide spread publication. On the other hand I've
    seen a lot of mail lately that the authors intended for a small
    select group and only that group that was forwarded widely around
    the company because it didn't say not to.

    VPs and SVPs should know enough to clearly label just how far things
    should be sent. But they're real people and tend to make the same
    assumptions that we all do about the people we send something to
    knowing what the right thing is. They probably aren't always aware
    that some people regard a VP memo as close to a message from god
    that the whole world needs to know about.

    As for overreaction, it doesn't take more then one call from "the
    Office of the President" telling you that KOs memo in your conference
    should not be there to make you a little shy about what you let stay
    in the way of memos from high level people. Think it doesn't happen?
    Think again.

    		Alfred

    re:  Note 1180.10 by Steve QUARK::LIONEL

    To the moderators I say thank you for 'putting up with topics like this
    one'. As one of the people that had their note set hidden, I was quite
    surprised but understood it something the moderators felt they had to do
    to comply with the 'rules'. 

    If various people wish to complain, complain about the high level
    of computer illiteracy of senior management.  If Jack Smith wanted
    wide distribution of his memo, then he (or someone on his staff)
    should have  1) sent an electronic mail copy to every employee, 2)
    put the memo in VTX, and  3) posted the memo in a notes conference
    rather than depending on ad hoc distribution.*   At the very least,
    someone on his staff should understand the technology and the
    company rules well enough to correctly label the memo.

    mike

    * the ultimate irony is that the ad hoc distribution resulted in
      a massive waste of resources as I received dozens of copies with
      huge header and trailer mail-address lists. 

    >of computer illiteracy of senior management.  If Jack Smith wanted
    >wide distribution of his memo, then he (or someone on his staff)
    >should have  1) sent an electronic mail copy to every employee, 2)
    >put the memo in VTX, and  3) posted the memo in a notes conference
    >rather than depending on ad hoc distribution.*   At the very least,
    
    	Referring to point number (1) above ..
    
         How?  "To: @DEC.DIS" ?
         OK, I *suppose* that someone could have pulled out all
         names from the Elf database - but not everyone bothers to
         store a net address in Elf anyway.  Do all DEC employees
         read mail?  Even production-line people?  Or don't they
         count?

    re .13
    
    Most of the time the "formal" distribution channels produce just
    as many distribution lists because of the hierarchal setup.
    
    At least with "informal" distribution the info generally arrives.
    
    I have not yet received one of Jack Smith's memo via the formal
    chain, but then Nijmegen is a long way from ............
    
    j.e.
    
    ps perhaps DEC in europe has declared independance?!
    

    re: .14 & .15
    
    When the company depends on "informal" distribution because the
    "formal" distribution channels do not work, then there is a serious
    problem. 
    
    Yes, there should be a @DEC.dis. True some people don't read e-mail.
    But if a VP wants to send an E-mail message to every employee, then
    should be possible. 
    
    mike

    If we do an "@DEC.DIS lets consider the impact when people print with
    either vaxmail or the print with distribution lists (PWD) option in
    All-in-1. The resulting paper costs could be a major cost impact.
    
    Lets use VTX and Notes the way they COULD be used instead!
    
    dick