| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 114.1 | First message received. | PEKING::NASHD | Wake me up when it's bedtime.. | Sun Aug 12 1990 12:43 | 95 |
|
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 10-Aug-1990 09:48am BST
From: WOOD
"A1::WOOD"@MRGATE@BEAGLE@BEAGLE@PEKING@MRGATE@SUBURB@REO
Dept:
Tel No:
TO: NASHD@A1_PEKING
Subject: 2nd Attempt
From: NAME: Andrew Wood
FUNC: AFSG
TEL: DTN 828 - 5829 <WOOD AT A1 @RICARD @VBO>
To: NASHD@PEKING@MRGATE
From: NAME:
FUNC:
TEL:
Date: 10-Aug-1990
Posted-date: 09-Aug-1990
Precedence: 1
Subject: Message Router VMSmail Gateway nondelivery notification
Delivery of this message through the Gateway had the following results:
PEKING::HASGD - invalid address
The original message follows:
From: NAME: Andrew Wood
FUNC: AFSG
TEL: DTN 828 - 5829 <WOOD AT A1 @RICARD @VBO>
Date: 10-Aug-1990
Posted-date: 10-Aug-1990
Precedence: 1
Subject: RESERVE_FORCES Notes file
To: STERLING@FLDSVC@MRGATE,
HASGD@PEKING@MRGATE
Hi Guys,
I would like access to the Reserve_Forces Notesfile. I request
membership under the corporate policy 6.54 which states;
"Digital provides systems to its employees to maintain computer
conferences (notesfiles) in direct support of Company business
(i.e., product development, financial analysis, business
planning, etc.). Digital also permits access to these systems to
communicate matters of opinions and common interests.
In all cases a computer conference must have an identified
conference moderator as defined above. Where the conference
directly supports the Company's business, the conference
moderator and the responsible systems manager may elect to
restrict access to the conference. Digital classified
information may only be placed in a conference with restricted
access. Conferences created to communicate matters of opinion
and common interests may not be used for solicitations of any
kind, and must be open to all employees."
As RESERVE_FORCES is not a business related conference I believe I
have a right to admittance.
FWIW I would not have read the Notesfile if it had not been made
Members only. It's just that I don't like censorship.....
Cheers,
Andy
PS When adding me as a member please do so for the following
nodes;
RICARD,BEAGLE,BISTRO,MOET,RTFM
All with the username WOOD.
|
| 114.2 | My reply. | PEKING::NASHD | Wake me up when it's bedtime.. | Sun Aug 12 1990 12:44 | 37 |
|
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 10-Aug-1990 11:08am BST
From: DAVE NASH
NASHD
Dept: A & L System Support
Tel No: 7-852-4345
TO: WOOD ( "A1::WOOD"@MRGATE@BEAGLE@BEAGLE@PEKING@MRGATE@SUBURB@REO )
CC: CHRISSIE BECK ( BECKC )
CC: Remote Addressee ( _SAC::PHILPOTT_I )
Subject: RE: 2nd Attempt
Andrew,
I have read your note.
The conference is restricted to protect Digital employees who are members
of the Reserve Forces. It was done for security, not censorship.
I trust you will have no objection if I seek a waiver on this point, from
the Corporation, when I get back in a few weeks time. That is, after I've
checked your information, and the section quoted in particular.
I would also like permission to enter your message into the RF Conference
so that I may obtain the opinion of the members.
I will keep you informed of any developments.
Regards,
Dave
|
| 114.3 | Andrew's response. | PEKING::NASHD | Wake me up when it's bedtime.. | Sun Aug 12 1990 12:45 | 39 |
|
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 10-Aug-1990 01:54pm BST
From: Andrew Wood
WOOD AT A1 @RICARD @VBO
Dept: AFSG
Tel No: DTN 828 - 5829
TO: NASHD AT A1_PEKING AT SUBURB AT REO
TO: *_SAC::PHILPOTT_I AT A1 @RICARD @VBO
TO: BECKC AT A1_PEKING AT SUBURB AT REO
Subject: Reserve_Forces
Hi Dave,
Feel free to forward my note post it etc. I took the extract from
VTX Corp database, P&P. I cannot imagine why it should be deemed
necassary for the notesfile to be made Members only (with
restrictions), Security as an argument does not hold much water
because anybody that might of wanted to gett he names of people
involved with the forces could have done so before hand or will be
able to do so once the conference is reopened.
For me it's no big deal and I hope you are able to get your
waiver. If not be prepared for trouble from Personnel. There is
always somebody that will cause problems. My mail was as much a
warning as a request for membership.
I will not be taking this any further.
If you reopen the conference, (or make me a member) please let me
know or announce it in Defense_Issues.
Cheers,
Andy
|
| 114.4 | Confused of Reading. | PEKING::NASHD | Wake me up when it's bedtime.. | Sun Aug 12 1990 12:59 | 20 |
| The only reason I can take care of this on a sunny Sunday morning
is because a vacation was messed up, but that's another story. Does
anyone have any comments regarding Andrew's note.
I have no qualms about seeking a waiver from the policy on a temporary
basis. However, there have been a few new names showing interest
and I can't quite decide what to do. Do we "admit" them or not?
How do we decide on that?
Should the restriction be temporary or permanent? On this point
I am inclined to delete the entry in the Easynet_conference and
rely on word-of-mouth, have a permanent restriction. Recomendation
by an existing member being one method of vetting, but would this
approach defeat the whole point of notes conferences? Do we have
a good distribution of members already? I think we might have.
I'll check this again on Thursday 16th August. What do you think?
Dave
|
| 114.5 | watch what you're saying! | ZPOV03::HWCHOY | It must be Thursday. | Sun Aug 12 1990 19:50 | 13 |
| I would suggest everyone to use their common-sense and not reveal
anything that is not already in the press media. Bear in mind that it
is easy to feel that you're in a circle of friends, but there are lot's
of passive readers (like me) that may be very interested in what you
have to say. Remember, Loose Talks Sink Ships.
As far as that goes, I don't see how restricting the conference can
help in security (as you already grant previous members membership).
But perhaps that may help highlight people who "suddenly" become
interested in this conference and their intent?
hw
ps: does the EASYnet extends into the middle East (Israel aside)?
|
| 114.6 | Leave it closed please.. | LANDO::DENNING | | Mon Aug 13 1990 16:00 | 18 |
| Some of the members of this file, myself included, are privy to
information not being made generally public. If we leave the conference
open to the public notes my be extracted and posted anywhere ie. the
USENET.
Things like unit equipment types/sizes/numbers have always be
classified information they should not be given to the general public.
I suspect that some of the people requesting membership are notesfile
mongers as I call them. These are people that just have nothing better
to do than to keep personnel busy and turn everything into a CF.
I think leaving the notesfile closed and requesting a waiver is the way
to go.
Just an opinion.
Don
|
| 114.7 | | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Mon Aug 13 1990 16:12 | 26 |
| Lets not go overboard: however that said I feel that we should keep it closed,
not to keep people out, but rather to give us a list of people with access to
the file.
Corporate PP&P isn't the issue incidentally, British subsidiary PP&P *is*. In
the normal run of things I'd consider the appropriate section pertinent to
restricted conferences binding (though I understand British Human Resources
(personnel) interpret it differently to US personnel). However an over-riding
consideration will be that the section on Digital abiding by the terms of local
laws takes precedence. In this case the law is the British "Official Secrets
Act". Particularly the contribution by anybody privy to NATO-restricted or
country-restricted information *may* be interpreted as classifying the whole
document (a process known as "contamination" :-). To avoid this I propose that
we adopt a security model based on the "proper" one: let us act as if material
in here is "NATO Restricted", and that the membership list constitutes a NTK
list ("need to know") with the moderators list being a NTC ("Need to control")
list.
When the crisis is over, we'll prune the file, delete anything that we can't
"de-classify" and open the file...
Regards,
Ian Philpott
(I'm back on the active list - and I'm only semi-happy about it... ;-})
|
| 114.8 | keep it open | WJOUSM::TOOHEY | | Mon Aug 13 1990 19:33 | 10 |
|
Lets not overreact to this. Although I'm not a registered
member nor a active writer, I do read this note quite often.
As a member of the military its my repsonsability to ensure
that I know whats classified and whats not. This conf. cannot
be considered classified so even if you restrict its use its
still in violation to accepted military pratice. This is
a Digital conference. Keep it open and lighten up....
Don
|
| 114.9 | My 2 cents worth | TROA01::SKLEIN | | Mon Aug 13 1990 21:13 | 20 |
| >Lets not go overboard: however that said I feel that we should keep it closed,
>not to keep people out, but rather to give us a list of people with access to
>the file.
Agree
>Particularly the contribution by anybody privy to NATO-restricted or
>country-restricted information *may* be interpreted as classifying the whole
>document (a process known as "contamination" :-).
I think that this is stretching it a bit, since anyone already contributing
over the past months, who is NATO-restricted or country-restricted, would have
already caused this conference to be "contaminated", by that interpretation.
I beleive that people can contribute to this notes conference without
compromising information that they are privy to as members of Reserve Forces.
I beleive that common sense must be used when writing to this conference. Let's
just keep it to gossip and rumors etc. :=)
Susan
|
| 114.10 | | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Tue Aug 14 1990 09:25 | 29 |
| re the last.
I agree that this conference is in no way a secure (in the military sense)
environment, I was merely suggesting that we, as responsible contributors, treat
it as if it were, and give due consideration to what we say.
I am informed by my CO that, having voluntarily [:-)] returned to part time
active duty during the current situation, I may no longer make comments in an
open forum, but that I may continue to participate in a forum the readership
of which could be identified by Security should the need arise...
However that said I, as moderator, will abide by the wishes of the community
as to whether this conference is open or has a membership list. I do not
advocate refusing access to anybody, though I do favour knowing who is reading
this conference.
Two possible areas of concern suggest themselves to me immediately: firstly
contributors may have identified their unit affiliations. If they then state
that they have returned to active duty they give information about the
commitment of particular units.
Secondly it is possible to inadvertently make statements, for example on
tactics, based on personal knowledge, without realising the implications. This
is in part because, though Notes is a semi permanent medium, one contributes
in a manner similar to a conversation.
Let the debate continue ... and let us not neglect the rest of the conference.
/. Ian .\
|
| 114.11 | Security on Security | IAMOK::BANCROFT | | Wed Aug 15 1990 14:31 | 7 |
| You might like to run this question by Corporate Security too.
Ray Humphrey and Chuck Bushey are respectively a retired Army
colonel and a Marine Major, so they are quite concerned with
National Security.
My own group, Electronic Information Security, although headed by
a reserve Airforce Major (Academy Man!), probably has no stake in
the question. Phil Bancroft (RA11289258)
|
| 114.12 | Information Security Clarification | 8713::J_BUTLER | Leave it better than you found it... | Wed Aug 15 1990 20:49 | 30 |
|
Let me clarify a point that I think may be unclear in my
security note in 2.83. I am posting this response here as
it seems to fit here better than in note 2.*.
Re: Information Security...
You may post an article from a public source (such as a news agency)
so long as you cite the source and do not indicate your knowledge
or lack of knowledge of the situation.
For example:
"UPI reported today that the 4077th Underwater Messkit Repair
Battalion (Mech) was flown to Fiji to assist in the search
for the Yeti."
If you know that that is one of the units capable of using the
nuclear projectile for the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol,
you would NOT mention that fact.
Also, I would advise against using specific unit associations.
Use "elements of the 52nd Infantry Division" rather than
the "119th Battalion, 4077th Optical Plumbing Regiment."
Thanks!
jb
|
| 114.13 | Sapper Oz Down Under | SNOC01::PRITCHARDJ | | Thu Aug 16 1990 05:58 | 9 |
| For what its worth we have joined the fray also. It is interesting
reading and I would not like to see it closed off. I think that if you
stick to the media facts and discuss nothing else by way of compromise
then all should be well. Like one other, I am not registered but
occaisionally contribute, being in the Reserve Forces here, down under.
Regards All
John
|
| 114.14 | | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Thu Aug 16 1990 11:06 | 14 |
|
John B has nicely stated the way to handle published "information". We follow
these rules (or at least try to) in DEFENSE_ISSUES, and they *do* work.
As for restriction of access, I am still thinking it through, but the longer
I think about it the more I feel that this forum should *stay* restricted, for
much the same reason as the alcoholics or homosexual conferences are restricted.
There are a few people in this corporation of ours who are not sympathetic to
members of the armed forces, and I feel that we need a "friendly place" to chat.
Perhaps more meaningful open discussions of defence related issues should be in
the un-restricted Defense Issues conference (on COMET).
/. Ian .\
|
| 114.15 | | SSGVAX::LEONHARDT | | Thu Aug 16 1990 16:03 | 9 |
| I think that there is no reason why this conference can not be
restricted, and maybe (for reasons stated in -1) it should be. But
even restricted this is not a secure conference. How many systems
people can access it? Notes is noplace for anything except what
you read in the "Globe" (which means its of no use to anybody).
Either way, I care not.
Dick
|
| 114.16 | Proud Member! | LVSB::GAGNON | | Mon Aug 20 1990 15:51 | 18 |
| I agree with .14, that this is a good place for us "Reserve Force"
members to B*tch, moan, and complain. This is a very sensitive
time for many of us, we trained for this hoping that our experience
would never be requested or needed. I like having an outlet where
I can discuss my opinion with members of the company who have
volenteered to defend the rights of others. I feel anyone who wants
access to this conference because it was restricted should be excluded
from participating whether it was restricted or not. It's our
rear-ends that are hanging in the winds, therefore we should decided
what happens to this conference, company policy or not.
my .02...
Kevin
BTW. Listening to some people around here, I don't really want
then to know I am in the Ready Reserve.
|
| 114.17 | I ain't never been seasick, but... | SSGVAX::LEONHARDT | | Tue Aug 21 1990 03:17 | 7 |
| So far I have had no negative reaction either to what our response
is or to my being liable for recall (mother excluded) (and the phooey
from Toohey (couldn't resist)).
I only have five weeks to retirement, but if they call, off we go...
Dick
|
| 114.18 | Time to reopen? | SSGVAX::LEONHARDT | | Tue Aug 28 1990 14:18 | 50 |
|
<<< ABACUS::USERM:[NOTES$LIBRARY]VETERANS.NOTE;2 >>>
-< Veterans Affairs >-
================================================================================
Note 376.6 RESERVE_FORCES Notesfile 6 of 7
GLDOA::REITER 17 lines 27-AUG-1990 15:52
-< U Gotta Be Kidding! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that Saddam Hussein himself is *fuming* at the actions of
the Reserve Forces conference moderator. Rumor has it that between CNN
and that conference, all of Iraq's intelligence requirements were being
met. This latest action in the war of words has Iraqi operatives
scrambling for alternatives.
In every serious situation, there are some laughable overreactions. My
father's partner used to tell the story of his Mom who, during WWI,
would cry herself to sleep because her (other) son was off in the Army.
His assignment was as a sentry on the Williamsburg bridge that runs
between Brooklyn and Manhattan in New York, but that didn't matter to
her.
This is the silliest case of misplaced caution I've heard in a long time.
\Gary
(btw: LCDR, SC, USNR)
<<< ABACUS::USERM:[NOTES$LIBRARY]VETERANS.NOTE;2 >>>
-< Veterans Affairs >-
================================================================================
Note 376.7 RESERVE_FORCES Notesfile 7 of 7
GLDOA::REITER 13 lines 27-AUG-1990 15:58
-< Loose lips? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous note is obviously intended to be sarcastic, but...
in a more serious vein, no member of the Reserve component should ever
discuss unit activation, troop movements, or similar information,
without authority, especially in public.
I would hope that those members in Notes would have known better, if
indeed that was ever a problem. I also hope that restricting
membership to a conference isn't providing someone with a false sense
of security about what they can and cannot discuss.
\Gary
|
| 114.19 | vote for restricted access | ICS::SHERMAN | | Thu Aug 30 1990 19:15 | 18 |
|
Re. 14, I agree. Keep it closed.
DEC has plenty of (U.S.) employees who are actively hostile to the
U.S. and would love to screw the military. I had, at one point, a
manager here who demanded that I get her *permission* before I went on
my annual active duty. I had to elevate all the way to Corporate
Personnel before she backed-off. DEC policies are all very nice, but
frankly, we share in this forum information that should stay in this
forum.
Ken
p.s. The manager noted above has subsequently been promoted two more
levels.
|
| 114.20 | | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Fri Aug 31 1990 09:17 | 9 |
|
Incidentally, US (Corporate) PP&P section 6.03 bans harassment on the basis of
veteran status explicitly. 6.03 is one of the "governing policies" for
"employee interest" notes files.
It is my belief that as this clause is used to create other closed conferences
it is sufficient justification for this one to remain "invitation only".
/. Ian .\
|
| 114.21 | | PEKING::NASHD | Wake me up when it's bedtime.. | Fri Aug 31 1990 15:34 | 30 |
|
There are a few more questions that we should consider. Is membership
only possible through a proposer/seconder route? If not, should access
be given to present or ex Militiary personnel only?
In my opinion, this conference is now restricted - permanently. On the
basis that there must be some degree of trust/faith in fellow
employees, if I receive a request for membership and some miltary
experience is stated in the initial note I have granted membership. So
far this has happened only in a few cases but to me it implies an
awareness of security. However I have some requests for membership
from people who are curious.
I am presently reading all the entries again to ensure that if anyone
has entered anything then they are on the membership list. Then I'll send
out one more note. Incidentally, I am disappointed that Gary Reiter
felt like adding criticism in the DEFENSE_ISSUES conference and not in
this one. I hope he does eventually so that his view can be discussed.
In all cases there must be some entry in the Roll-call. An omission
could eventually lead to no access.
On what grounds is access to be denied?
I don't want to get like the Ancient Greeks and discuss everything, but
with something like this it's important we do the right thing. This
includes the future of the conference and the addition of new members.
Dave.
|
| 114.22 | Keep it closed | AKOV12::LORENTZEN | | Fri Aug 31 1990 17:25 | 11 |
| Having been away for awhile I'm just now getting caught up on my
reading. Rather than rehash all the rationale that has already been
stated let me just say that I support the restriction on access to this
conference. David started it for Reservists and, while it's apparent
that others find it interesting, I see no reason to dilute the
participation.
Now, I'd better get myself into Rollcall before I find myself on the
outside and not able to look in!
Len
|
| 114.23 | And now... | PEKING::NASHD | | Tue Nov 06 1990 18:05 | 27 |
| The story so far(albeit briefly):
I still have not had one definitive answer. I was hoping for one from
a person last week, but it never materialised. She has gone to a new
job so I'll talk to her replacement, probably later this week.
Until I'm told otherwise by someone with clout, this conference stays
restricted.
Now then, I generally get 2 types of membership requests:
1) The people with previous experience and they specify it. These
people to date have joined our group. To me it indicates some
appreciation of security.
2) Those with no experience.
I could:
1)Decline membership to those people with no experience;
2)Only add the people who already know someone in the conference.
3) Carry on as I have been doing more or less, and give access to people
who specify some experience in their initial request.
Anyone got any thoughts on this?
Dave
|
| 114.24 | my .02 | LVSB::GAGNON | Iraqnophobia...catch it! | Tue Nov 06 1990 18:29 | 4 |
| Keep it restricted to people with experience, Not just because they
know someone in this conference.
Kevin
|
| 114.25 | ...and my $.02... | KODAK::DAISY | | Tue Nov 06 1990 21:11 | 3 |
| I feel comfortable restricting it to those with experience.
Jane
|
| 114.26 | another $.02 = $.04 | DNEAST::BOSSIE_MIKE | United Federation of Planets | Wed Nov 07 1990 03:26 | 7 |
|
Ditto with myself also
(just a Maine-niac with .02 worth)
Mike
|
| 114.27 | | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Wed Nov 07 1990 09:08 | 10 |
|
ditto, for now.
After the crisis abates perhaps we could operate on a proposer/seconder
mechanism like a members only club, for those with no experience.
One thing I do think though is that "interest only" members should only
be allowed in as contributors - no read only voyeurs.
/. Ian .\
|
| 114.28 | a different opinion | MSBCS::TARMEY | | Wed Nov 07 1990 12:46 | 52 |
|
And now, for one dissenting vote.
Hard as I try, I cannot come up with any rational (at least to me)
reason for restricting access to this conference.
I am not currently a Reservist, though, at one time, I was. I read,
and occassionally comment on notes here because I do have an interest
in Military matters. I find this conference a wealth of insightful
information concerning a multitude of subjects. The commentary in this
conference on the current Mid-East situation is more credible than what
I might hear from Dan Rather or read in the daily tabloid.
One does not need to be either a current or past Military person to
want this balance. I would think that we would want others to have it.
I have not gone back to read all the reasons for wanting to keep this a
restricted conference. However, I seem to recall two primary concerns;
Security and possible harrassment of participants due to their
affiliations. Security, I think has been addressed. It should not be
an issue in this, or any other, conference. I, as a former Military
person, have no more right (need-to-know) to non-public-domain
information than someone with no such background. Classified
information, or commentary derived from such information, cannot appear
in Notes.
There are many other 'open' Military oriented conferences that most of
us use. Defense_Issues, Navies, and Veterans come to mind. Anyone
interested in identifying folks with "Military-Mentalities" need not
come to Reserve_Forces, they could go to any one of the other ones. In
fact, they could probably get more information on our leanings by
sitting next to us at lunch.
Personally, I do not consider most of the "read only" folks as voyeurs.
I'm sure there are some, but would expect most are just interested.
This is a Conference that is managed out of the UK. I don't know much
of the civilian perception of the military there. Perhaps it justifies
the concerns that I have read here. Don't know. Here, I think most of
the populace (I know I am) are fed up with the mickey mouse "Military
Clandestine" mentality that believes the average man (or woman) on the
street can't intelligently deal with honest information.
Bottom line - I cannot think of anything in this conference that I
would not discuss with anyone, regardless of their political or other
persusion, giving my viewpoint, and, if necessary, defending it.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand Restricted
Access.
Bill Tarmey
|
| 114.29 | Go ahead rip me a new one!! | LVSB::GAGNON | Iraqnophobia...catch it! | Wed Nov 07 1990 12:58 | 16 |
| You made some good points, however I still think it should be
restricted. As I said in another entry, I don't feel comfortable
having some people know of my status as a reservist.
Also, the last thing I want to hear in this conference is someone
with no experience starting to question and ridicule the U.S. or
other memebers of the forces over in the Middle East, asking why
we are there etc...
One possible solution to this is to have someone start another
conference temporarily to discuss Middle East related issues.
Just a thought.
Kevin
|
| 114.30 | just an opinion - no offense intended | MSBCS::TARMEY | | Wed Nov 07 1990 13:26 | 21 |
|
RE: .29
Sorry! It was not my intent to "rip" anyone a new one. I tried to
direct my comments to the topic, not toward those commenting on it.
Sorry if you took offense.
My opinion is that YOU have to deal with YOUR feelings about YOUR
affiliation with the Reserves. Those feelings, and people's reaction to
them are really irrelevant to Conference Access.
Today; right, wrong, or otherwise, the involvement of the
Multi-National force in the Middle-East is not (IMO) a military matter.
It is Political. Personally, I think it is healthy to have
embarrassing questions asked. They tend to make us revisit our own
beliefs to see just how deeply they run.
Though I repsect your feelings, I will not pretend to understand them.
I must, however, accept them. Given that, I still don't see how
restricted Conference Access will help you deal with them.
|
| 114.31 | keep the restriction | CSS::VALCOURT | | Wed Nov 07 1990 13:35 | 7 |
| I think keeping this conference Restricted is good (until at least the
Middle-East crisis is over).
my .02 (I think the pot is growing $$),
ken
|
| 114.32 | Growl! | AKOV11::LORENTZEN | | Wed Nov 07 1990 15:47 | 7 |
| Keep it restricted. I enjoy the ability to read and contribute in
this forum without the need to justify positions/comments/statements
to those who might lack the basic understanding of the premise of
citizen soldiers. I don't have the time or inclination to enlighten
or attempt to persuade non-believers.
Len
|
| 114.33 | | 18955::KEEFE | walk swiftly with a porpoise | Wed Nov 07 1990 17:08 | 5 |
|
....I vote to keep the restriction.
Kevin (99% read-only, but active reserve)
|
| 114.34 | Another vote for freedom of information | SSVAX::LEONHARDT | | Wed Nov 07 1990 19:09 | 5 |
| Open it. Concur with .28
If someone is worried about harrasment, go read only. If you get
harrased, go up the chain ASAP. Nail the mother. But don't hide
from it.
|
| 114.35 | no need for restriction | A1VAX::BOHRER | | Thu Nov 08 1990 16:51 | 10 |
| Open it. Concur with .28
I see no reason to restrict the access. I am a currently drilling
reservist and I am proud of it. I believe everyone I know at work knows that I
am in the reserves (they keep wondering when I am going to the Persian Gulf).
I have a poster of the Vietnam Memorial in clear view to all who enter
my office. I am a Vietnam Vet and also proud of that and I don't keep it a
secret either.
Ed Bohrer
|
| 114.36 | Unrestrictred | KAOO01::LAPLANTE | | Thu Nov 08 1990 18:07 | 18 |
|
Although I think we will be outvoted, I also am for unrestricted
access.
The security question is a non issue to me. The only way classified
information could get in here is for one of us to put it there and if
we reservists don't know what should and what should not be made public
we are derilict in our duty.
I would welcome non-reservists asking questions. If we don't get into
spitting contests, we will have the opportunity to give some thoughtful
responses to people which might make them think better of us than they
already do.
This is an opportunity to get our views out in the open, regardless of
who reads them.
Roger
|
| 114.37 | | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Mon Nov 12 1990 08:37 | 28 |
|
There are three possibilities
1) restricted with membership only for those "with experience"
2) unrestricted
3a) restricted, but anybody who applies can become a member.
3b) restricted but anybody who applies can become a member, but only
active noters remain members.
We currently have two conferences devoted to the military arena which
are fully unrestricted and in which people may note publicly -
DEFENSE_ISSUES and VETERANS. Given that I believe that this conference
should remain members only. Not because of security - as a previous
note said we know what can be said in public, (though I am a little
concerned that we identify our unit affiliations - if then we get
called up a unit movement can be identified from the file), not because
I am not proud of what I do - I am. But because sometimes I like to
have a space akin to the mess bar where I can talk freely to my peer
and colleagues.
/. Ian .\
PS: I will be adding up my notes from the last year for my donation to
the Poppy Appeal later this week.
|
| 114.38 | how secure are we in our own beliefs? | MSBCS::TARMEY | | Mon Nov 12 1990 13:24 | 33 |
|
An observation:
Up until a few months ago, this conference was completely open and
unrestricted. The current situation in the Middle East is what
apparently led to the change to 'Restricted'.
Given all the rationale that has been presented in this note for
keeping it restricted, I am still confused. What has changed? Folks
who chose to contribute 'pre-restriction' did so openly, perhaps
proudly, and with little or no fear of retribution. Folks who
contributed did so knowing that some might disagree with their
positions, might even choose to do so here. Even with this knowledge,
some folks still contributed.
What has changed? Yes, I know what has changed in the world - but,
what has change with this conference? Take the 'security' concern
away. As the previous reply said, it has no place here.
Personally, I cannot understand the rhyme or reason for anyone who
chose to participate pre-restiction, but now chooses not to participate
unless restriction is maintained. Perhaps someone can help me to
understand.
This is not intended as a dig against anyone. This conference was
never the home of bashful, introverted people. Seems to me it's
becoming one.
Thoughts for a Monday morning,
Bill Tarmey
|
| 114.39 | No secrets here | ASDS::AIKEN | old P2s never die | Mon Dec 10 1990 20:35 | 23 |
| I've been out of this conference since early September (the reason is
not relevant) but I have missed the lively discussion of the last few
months. It's no secret around here that I am an active reservist and do
more time than is called for in the contract. I have yet to meet someone
in Digital who is opposed to what I do (didn't say they don't exist ...
just that I haven't met one). Nor do I recall any negative or
derogatory notes or replies towards reservists in this conference. Has
the moderator come across anything that might be inflamatory?
I must agree with the decenting voters. There is no reason to keep this
conference restricted. There is not a security issue. Any personal
issues do not seem to impact the general participant population. As for
divulging the identity of our units, the press is doing a better job of
publicizing which units are being activated, and how meny people are
involved, than this conference ever could.
Unless I've overlooked some compelling reason, I can't see how this
conference meets any criteria or guidlines for restricting membership
or safeguarding the confidentiality of material presented here.
Dick Aiken
|
| 114.40 | UK Policy status. | PEKING::NASHD | | Tue Dec 11 1990 08:01 | 72 |
| I have an answer from the company; please read the attatched mail I
received recently.
To me it says that we can restrict the conference, but questions the amount
of work involved in doing so.
Any comments,
Dave
============================================================================
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 10-Dec-1990 06:41pm GMT
From: Chris Nash
NASHC AT A1 at SUBURB at REO
Dept:
Tel No:
TO: DAVID NASH @REO
Subject: NOTES answers
Dave, sorry for the delay answering you on the NOTES problem you came to me
with but I have been talking to the Policies person in the UK, Alex Bain, and
have now received an answer from him...
Basically he does not know of a Policy stating that a non-business NOTESFILE
cannot be run on a restricted basis so you are OK to continue with what you
are doing and the way you are doing it.
I have attached the memo from Alex, without the headings, for reference...
Cheers,
Chris
In general, if someone from Corporate is claiming a policy
exists, I would ask them to produce written evidence of this
(I do this a lot - and sometimes with surprising results).
If they do, and you have a problem with it, please let me
know - I may be able to get a deviation if the policy no
longer makes business sense.
As far as your specific is concerned, there are no policies
in the UK policies book on NOTESFILE. They may exist as part
of the IS policy set (UK) or DIS policy set (Corporate), both
of which are accessed by VTX, but I am not aware of them.
The most complete set of guidelines I have seen are in the
first few notes to the MODERATORS conference, but guidelines
in a conference do not carry the power of a mandatory
directive.
Whether or not such a policy should exist is in my judgement
a risk assessment decision. The degree of risk must be
balanced against the cost of implementation, including the
cost of policing. The level of policing, and who did it,
would again need to be part of the cost equation.
Personally, it seems to me like a non starter. I can't see
that the cost of enforcing such a policy would make it a
viable proposition.
Regards
Alex
|
| 114.41 | should, not could | MSBCS::TARMEY | | Wed Dec 12 1990 13:05 | 18 |
|
RE: .40
Dave,
I did not go back to read the previous replies, and I cannot
recall specific position statements, but I must question the relevancy
of the 'Policy Memo'. Again, I will voice my opinion. I never
questioned whether or not you - in your role as Moderatior - could make
the Conference Restricted. My assumption was that since you had taken
that action, clearly you had the "power". My concern was, should you.
Seems like, in the old Harry Truman tradition, 'The buck stops
here'. You've received input from a number of folks supporting both
positions. Looks like it's your call.
Bill Tarmey
|
| 114.42 | | PEKING::NASHD | | Wed Dec 12 1990 14:52 | 12 |
| Bill,
Way back in time when all this started it seemed to me that the right
order of events was to restrict access and then discuss it.
Although I'm a moderator, to my way of thinking my opinion is no more
relevant or important than any other members. I'll go along with the
majority view point and at the moment opinion seems divided.
Dave
|
| 114.43 | | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Thu Dec 13 1990 11:41 | 3 |
| What time? Any alterations I do to the membership list I do in my own time.
/. Ian .\
|
| 114.44 | Time for a review. | DUCK::NASHD | | Sat Mar 09 1991 10:47 | 8 |
|
It's been many months since the conference was restricted, so I think
its about time we had another poll. Should we remain an exclusive club
or open our doors to one and all?
What say you?
Dave
|
| 114.45 | one more time | SSVAX::LEONHARDT | | Sun Mar 10 1991 01:44 | 3 |
| OPEN
Dick
|
| 114.46 | | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Sun Mar 10 1991 09:32 | 7 |
|
I suggest that we go back to open.
However we could also keep it members only but allow anybody with "an
interest" to be a member...
/. Ian .\
|
| 114.47 | OPEN | LVSB::GAGNON | Who WAS Saddam Hussien? | Mon Mar 11 1991 04:31 | 5 |
| Agree with the Col...
OPEN with access.
Kevin
|
| 114.48 | | SSVAX::LEONHARDT | | Mon Mar 11 1991 15:14 | 5 |
| How does that work? We have and OPEN conference with a restricted list
of participants. Everyone has access, but must they first be approved
by a committee? What constitutes "interest"?
Dick
|
| 114.49 | open | ASDS::AIKEN | old P2s never die | Mon Mar 11 1991 15:49 | 3 |
| Another vote for an OPEN conference
Dick
|
| 114.50 | | DUCK::NASHD | | Mon Mar 11 1991 15:49 | 9 |
| Dick,
I understand it to mean that access be given to anyone who requests it.
There is no committee nor does a reason have to be given.
Up to now it's been restricted to those people who admitted having
previous experience of either the regulars or reserves.
Dave
|
| 114.51 | | DUCK::NASHD | | Mon Mar 11 1991 15:52 | 5 |
| By the way, I'm taking the OPEN votes to mean totally unrestricted
access to the conference.
|
| 114.52 | | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Mon Mar 11 1991 16:14 | 15 |
|
"members only but anybody can join" means "no voyeurs". ie we know who is able
to note here.
We could have a supplementary rule: sign in or have your membership cancelled.
The other main advantage is that it allows us to mail all the members if we
need to...
It is easy to manage using PAN (anybody wanting access send us mail and we
use PAN to add them to the file...)
However, by and large, I see no reason why we shouldn't go back to fully open.
/. Ian .\
|
| 114.53 | e | MSHRMS::KEEFE | walk swiftly with a porpoise | Mon Mar 11 1991 16:15 | 4 |
| I'll go with .46.
Kevin
|
| 114.54 | Given that, | SSVAX::LEONHARDT | | Mon Mar 11 1991 16:22 | 5 |
| re .50 Ok.
Thanks,
Dick
|
| 114.55 | | DUCK::NASHD | | Mon Mar 11 1991 16:54 | 16 |
|
I like the supplementary rule Ian suggested.
Unless anyone presents any significant objections, then from
Monday 18th March we will adopt the open membership approach, and it
will be announced in the Easynet conference. Every member will have to
announce themselves in the note 2.0.
Are there any other rules, policies we should consider? I'm fairly
relaxed when it comes to imposing rules etc. As the saying goes,
"God helps those who help themselves, but God help those caught helping
themselves" aka do what you like but don't get caught!
Dave
|
| 114.56 | | JUPITR::WHYNOT | SK2 - USNR | Tue Mar 12 1991 16:11 | 7 |
|
If it ain't to late to vote.......Open
|
| 114.57 | Sign-In | DPDMAI::HYDE | Rdb �ber alles OKO 487-2256 | Tue Mar 12 1991 22:35 | 9 |
| I like open with the requirement to sign in.
One of the nice things about this conference is the way the
participants keep to the subject. I'd hate to lose that. In a number
of other notes conferences, I find myself skipping over large numbers
of topics and replies, many of which are tangential.
Kurt
|
| 114.58 | My $.02 worth | CANON::DAISY | | Wed Mar 13 1991 13:38 | 1 |
| I like the version Ian suggested.
|
| 114.59 | | TROA01::SKLEIN | Nulli Secundus | Wed Mar 13 1991 15:01 | 2 |
|
I vote for open.
|
| 114.60 | | DUCK::NASHD | | Sat Mar 16 1991 08:11 | 6 |
| I read the 3 entries in the EASYNET conference about the RF and decided
it really didn't need any modification, so I've left it alone.
However, from now on anyone who wants access can have it.
Dave
|