Conference 7.286::digital

    Anyone have a good feel for how widely read and respected the Forrester
    Report is???

    This article and BP's statement after the quarterly that "the entire
    enterprise could be at risk" (The news reports conveniently left out
    the "If we don't change" that preceded it) just kept a large desktop
    services customer from signing a 3-year service contract with us. Their
    spin on it was that they didn't believe that we'd be around in 3 years
    to keep up our end of the bargain.... :-(
    
    Harry
    

    Re: .0
    
    What do they know? We have Alpha and we have layoffs to usher in
    profitability... can't they understand that this is *THE* receipe for
    success?!?
    
    
    
    The report looks 100% spot on to me....
    
    Lee

    My experience is that the Forrester report doesn't get too far out of
    the New England area.  Where is the customer in -2?
    
    The downside is that Forrester has typically been a Digital fan.
    
    ..Larry

    Re .4
    not true unfortunately-it is widely available and read in Europe.

    I have not heard of the Forrester Report in N.J. but I think the
    articule is right on. 

>    My experience is that the Forrester report doesn't get too far out of
>    the New England area.  Where is the customer in -2?

Houston, TX.

-Andy

    Yep, I'm in Houston. The customer is a worldwide checmical company
    based in Wilmington, DE. The folks in Delaware pulled the plug on the
    3-year deal here.
    
    Hiya Andy! :-)
    
    Harry
    

    Re .10 We already lost all their nationwide VAX business. They went to
    Grumman around January 1. :-(
    
    Harry
    

re Note 3150.0 by Forrester Research:

>       Create 30-50 "Digital Labs" - 
>     	independent businesses with some shared resources, ranging from $10 
>     	million-$50 million in size. 

        This is certainly a good idea.

        To a limited extent we had this idea in the mid-80s when the
        multiple, small, relatively independent corporate research
        labs were formed.

        Unfortunately we didn't understand that independence not only
        was necessary for good research but also for good engineering
        and good business innovation.

        (In fact the research successes of the research labs were
        frustrated in the technology transfer to the monolithic "one
        strategy" of the rest of the company.)

        Bob

        (I've actually been preaching this idea to associates for
        most of my years here.)

    I wonder what Bob Palmer thought of the opinion that Digital's
    customers should wait until after he's fired before making future
    plans.  Then again, I'm sure I can guess...

What happened to .0?

	paul

    Does anyone know where we can read the report. It seems to have
    been deleted here.
    
    Thanks,
    Jim Graft
    

re Note 3150.15 by MIMS::GRAFT_J:

>     Does anyone know where we can read the report. It seems to have
>     been deleted here.
  
        NRSTA2""::USER05:[FLEISCHER.DISTRIB]FORRESTER-REPORT-APRIL-25.TXT

    You may also read it in it's entirety on PEAR::SOAPBOX, Note #1574...

    re: .17 - no you can't - it's been deleted...

    i would like to know why .0 was deleted? it's been circulated
    throughtout the entire world via many networks through many companies.
    i've recieved 2 copies from dec empolyess and FOUR from customers. 

    Mods.  Please respond at your convenience to -1.

To my knowledge, none of the moderators deleted the base note.

Paul, co-moderator Digital

    Well, that only leaves the author...
    
    Laurie.

    Want me to put it back???
    
    -sjd
    

    yes

  Or anyone on HUMANE with privs.

  	mP

    I saw a response from one of the moderators also. He wanted the author
    of the base note to verify he had authorization to post the original
    note. He also said he was going to write lock this note. Strange that
    it is not write locked and both the base note and moderator's note have
    vaporized.
    
    Dan

    I recall the mod's note saying somthing about the mail forwards being
    missing from the basenote and it was going to be hidden until the
    basenote author obtained proper permission.
    
    To the best of my recollection, the moderators note had a username
    that rhymed with 'FLINN'.
    
    Lee
    
    

Ref: .26

Yes, we all saw it.  I also read the Forrester Report in the 'BOX after
it had been deleted here.  The author did not delete it.

Williams VIGIL
LSO

    About deleting the base note:
    
    No, I don't know who did it, but it has been a consistent policy in
    most of the conferences I read to nuke ANY note that was posted without
    the originator's permission -- regardless of whether or not the
    material has been widely circulated.  This may be a paranoid reaction,
    but it does follow the letter of the applicable P&Ps.
    
    In other words, the base note was probably not deleted out of spite or
    malice; it was deleted because its posting broke the rules.
    
    If you really need to read the report, there is a pointer in this
    string that will allow you to see the material.

         <<< HUMANE::DISK$CONFERENCES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 3150.26   Forrester Report, April 25, 1994, George F. Colony       26 of 31
HELIX::SONTAKKE                                      21 lines   9-JUN-1994 09:54
                      -< *The* moderator took the action >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >        <<< Note 3150.21 by FUNYET::ANDERSON "MmMmMyAlphaGeneration"
    >>>>
    >                              -< Deleter unknown >-
    >
    >To my knowledge, none of the moderators deleted the base note.
    >
    >Paul, co-moderator Digital

    I distinctly remember ONE of the moderators taking objection to the
    base note.  His complaint was that he wanted to verify the poster had
    the permission to post the note.

    The moderator had kindly posted his assessment along with the
    deletion/hiding of the base note.

    - Vikas
                         
    P.S.  However, there is no more trace of it here today.  
    This is rather interesting in my opinion. Am I the only one who saw the
    moderator's reply yesterday?  Is anyone else willing to back me up on
    this one?

    Let's all just keep our mouths shut and our heads in the sand.
    
    Problems, what problems?
    
    Jim C.
    

        There seems to be a lot of question about what happened to the
        topic note.
        
        When I read the topic note, I noticed that it included a report
        that had been published by an external research organization, but
        that the person who posted it had (apparently) removed all of the
        mail headers that (presumably) were present in distribution.
        
        I inquired of the topic author if this was, in fact, the case, and
        during the time I was waiting for a reply, I write-locked the
        topic and made the topic note hidden.
        
        Now, you may think this is irrelevant, but Corporate Personnel
        Policy 6.54 (which you can read in VTX ORANGEBOOK) explicitly says
        that it is a mis-use of Digital's computer systems to repost mail
        into a notes conference (a) without the permission of the original
        author or (b) with the original message headers removed.
        
        Here's what the policy currently says about this:
        
 Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the
 responsibility of the original author.  Posting these materials in a
 notesfile/conference without the explicit permission of the author is
 prohibited and is a violation of this policy.

 When forwarding messages or posting them to conferences, removal or
 falsification of the original message header (which indicates the
 author) is prohibited.

        There is an earlier section of the policy that REQUIRES the
        conference moderators to assure compliance not just with the
        spirit of the policy but with the letter.  Consequently, when I
        noticed what APPEARED to be a violation of the policy, I asked the
        person who APPEARED to have violated the policy whether he knew of
        the policy and whether he had, in fact, violated the policy.
        
        He concluded (probably after reading the policy) that the note in
        question should be removed.  I intended to remove it, but when I
        re-opened the conference, it was already gone.  I know that I did
        not remove it, and I doubt any of the other moderators did so, but
        I haven't checked back with the topic note's author to see if he
        did, in fact, remove it.
        
        Since the topic note was gone, my note indicating that it had been
        hidden and that the topic was write-locked was no longer relevant,
        and I removed that note, made the topic writable, and made the
        topic note "visible" (although it was now content-free).  I also
        brought the deletion of the topic note to the attention of those
        who had replied to that point.
        
        There have been some INTERPRETATIONS of what happened that were
        made in this topic, and at least one of them (subsequently revised
        by its author) involved what seemed to me to be a personal attack
        on my ethical principals and integrity.  Notes like that are
        really not appropriate to this conference (or any other), and they
        are (also) in violation of various policies.
        
        Look, I know there's a lot of stress in the system.  Digital is in
        trouble.  A lot of the fear and anxiety is getting played out in a
        number of forums, including the DIGITAL conference.  That doesn't
        mean all the rules have gone away.
        
        In fact, the conference moderators have been reminded, recently,
        by Corporate Personnel and Corporate Employee Relations, of their
        responsibility to assure the conference operates within the bounds
        of corporate policy.
        
        It would be EXTREMELY helpful if conference participants did their
        share.  
        
        If you have questions about what happened in a topic, you could
        try ASKING via MAIL, outside the conference.  You mind find it's
        less likely to create a brouhaha (or make a mountain out of a
        molehill), and you might even find the conference moderators are
        human and (for the most part) reasonable people.  You'll get a lot
        further by asking non-confrontational questions and making gentle
        suggestions than by flaming the moderators or making accusations.
        
        Tom

>    This is rather interesting in my opinion. Am I the only one who saw the
>    moderator's reply yesterday?  Is anyone else willing to back me up on
>    this one?
    
    No, I did, too, and now we get the postdated explanation in -.1. 
    
    Blasting notes, no return to author, deleting the explanations for the
    blasting, blasting complaints of blasting, write-locking!  Paul's a mod
    and he wsan't even aware of this!  Methinks our newly aggressive mod
    should sit down with some of our seasoned mods (Paul, Steve, Bob, etc.)
    and learn a tad more light-handed, light-hearted, and tactful
    approach...before a POed Digit sits down in the library with alllll
    those subscription cards from the magazines! :^]
    
    Seriously, I personally can't handle these tactics along with
    dwindling resources, rising workloads, falling morale, and never-ending
    layoffs.  If this continues, I'm outta here for my own sanity...what's
    left.
    
    							Tex

    Re. .35:

    Seems to me the explanation in .34 constitutes very reasonable action
    and does in no way fit the description of:
    
>     Blasting notes, no return to author, deleting the explanations for the
>     blasting, blasting complaints of blasting, write-locking!

    The events which readers were able to observe produced a lot of
    theories, ultimately incorrect, about what happened, and even when the
    facts are reported, the reverberation from the theories continues.

>     and learn a tad more light-handed, light-hearted, and tactful
>     approach...

    I think this suggestion is a good one and very appropriate for anyone
    inclined to panic over each passing rumor in these stressful times.  My
    suggestion is, if you have verifiable facts, report them.  If you have
    a dire theory that just popped into your head, tell only your dog.


    dlm

>    Methinks our newly aggressive mod
>    should sit down with some of our seasoned mods (Paul, Steve, Bob, etc.)

I dare say that Tom Blinn is about as well seasoned (sorry Tom) as any
of the others listed above.  You obviously have not done a Notes> SHOW MOD
in this conference in some time - Tom has been a moderator of this conference
for longer than I can remember ('course that may not be saying much :-).

-Andy

Yeah but he's been inactive for a while.

>for longer than I can remember ('course that may not be saying much :-).
    
    You still have MEMORIES?!?  Can I borrow 'em sometime, can't seem to
    find mine.  :^]  What's the report from Atlanta?  How's things?
    
    						Tex

    > What's the report from Atlanta?  How's things?

Pretty wet today......

Dave

Policy 6.54 does say what Tom Blinn posted, but he didn't post it all:

	This policy covers all messages addressed to individuals and
	organizations.  It is not intended to restrict the distribution
	of general announcements, course listings, or messages originally
	posted on external bulletin boards such as Usenet news groups.

/john

	RE: .34

>        Since the topic note was gone, my note indicating that it had been
>        hidden and that the topic was write-locked was no longer relevant,
>        and I removed that note, made the topic writable, and made the
>        topic note "visible" (although it was now content-free).

	Rather than removing that entry, wouldn't entering a subsequent
	entry further clarifying the situation have kept things above
	board and avoided the digression?
        
>        In fact, the conference moderators have been reminded, recently,
>        by Corporate Personnel and Corporate Employee Relations, of their
>        responsibility to assure the conference operates within the bounds
>        of corporate policy.

	What if corporate policy conflicts with applicable law?

	As has been pointed out elsewhere, blindly following directions may
	lead to personal liability.  The "I did it because my managment
	directed me to" may not constitute a valid legal defense, especially
	when it is within one's own powers to remove themselves from such
	exposure.
        
>        If you have questions about what happened in a topic, you could
>        try ASKING via MAIL, outside the conference.  You mind find it's
>        less likely to create a brouhaha (or make a mountain out of a
>        molehill), and you might even find the conference moderators are
>        human and (for the most part) reasonable people.  You'll get a lot
>        further by asking non-confrontational questions and making gentle
>        suggestions than by flaming the moderators or making accusations.

	Again... it appears that had a follow up note to further clarify the
	situation been entered, without removing the one that initially raised
	an issue about the base note, the subsequent controversy surrounding
	moderation tactics may have been avoided.

		-Andy

        RE: .41 -- John, you are absolutely correct that the policy goes
        on to list those exceptions; and, in this case, to the best of my
        knowledge, NONE of them applied -- which is why I didn't bother to
        list them all.
        
        RE: .42 -- In my experience, in some conferences, almost ANY
        action by moderators will be second-guessed by at least some of
        the participants, and some participants will resort to posting
        their INTERPRETATIONS of what has happened without bothering to
        inquire (for instance, with the moderators) about the validity of
        the interpretations.  After all, the facts about WHAT HAPPENED are
        much less interesting, most of the time, than speculation.
        
        As for "applicable law", I am unaware of any applicable law that
        would require Digital to permit its employees to use its computer
        systems and networks to COPY (i.e., re-publish) material for which
        the owner has not granted permission.  Is there some other law to
        which you refer?  After all, I would not knowingly violate any US
        law that applies, and I trust you are not implying that I would do
        so.  After all, that would be both unethical and a violation of my
        employee agreement.  (By the way, I'm not an attorney, and I would
        assume you are not, either, so I would imagine neither of us is a
        particularly qualified expert on the law, and more importantly, on
        the validity of any particular legal defense.)
        
        Tom

    Speaking of digression...the scholarly treaty on everyone being/not
    being a lawyer in .43 is very stimulating BUT fails to answer Moskal's
    question:
    
>	Rather than removing that entry, wouldn't entering a subsequent
>	entry further clarifying the situation have kept things above
>	board and avoided the digression?
    
    Now, I'm not a veterinarian, and I don't think y'all are veterinarians,
    but out here, when we see that much fertilizer, we start lookin' for a
    pony.
    
    As Moskal says, "confrontation is often self inflicted".  In these
    trying times, what we DON'T need is additional friction.  Let's just
    put aside the right/wrong judgements at this point and try another
    angle.
    
    Are current methods causing friction?  Is it taking up an inordinate
    amount of time?  Is there any thing that can be done to alleviate this
    situation?   (I learned this when my daughter was 13...it's a great
    approach!)
    
    Think about it.  Let's do our damndest in this conference to:
    
    * reduce friction
    
    * be helpful to others as resources dwindle
    
    * share knowledge and insight
    
    * explore rumours
    
    * add a little humour to someone's day.  Hell, sometimes it's hard
      enough just to drag in, knowing what's waiting for you, without all
      this hoopla on top of it!
    
    * tell someone who's leaving you wish 'em the best and, if you worked
      with 'em, you appreciated their contribution.
    
    Most all of us are abrasive or unthinking at times, but it needn't be a
    lifestyle choice.
    
    							Tex

	there was a time when all the Forrester reports were posted in
	VTX MIS, the Market Intelligence System (sic)....in theory
	that would have made the basenote extremely uncontroversial....
	however a quick scan shows that no Forrester's have been posted
	since some time last year....indeed, the entire month of April
	contains only postings from Gartner and Dataquest......o well....

	_kelley