| Title: | DCU |
| Notice: | 1996 BoD Election results in 1004 |
| Moderator: | CPEEDY::BRADLEY |
| Created: | Sat Feb 07 1987 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1041 |
| Total number of notes: | 18759 |
I was wondering weither or not I was the only one who gets fustrated
at reading the *offical* replies that gets but in?
I hardly get the feeling that they even *read* what written.
This is the same treatment I get when I call. Am I alone on this?
And where are allthose candidates that ran for office? Will they
return only in time for next election?
How can we make DCU *our* bank?
ed
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 138.1 | Are they out there?...Hello!! | SALEM::RIEU | Sanitized for your protection | Wed Feb 08 1989 10:58 | 2 |
Glad to see all those 'official responses' pouring in!!
Denny
| |||||
| 138.2 | Batch Process for Replies... | TSE::LEEBER | Nobody Asked, Just My Opinion! | Thu Feb 09 1989 09:05 | 15 |
As recently as Monday (02/06/89), Mary Madden indicated that a response
is "in the works" for the issues raised here. My observation is that
they tend to 1) batch the responses and 2) have an official review of
the wording before Mary sends the text to me for posting.
As I have said before, to folks who are not used to noting this
medium is no different than putting a position statement in the
DCU newsletter. I believe that John Tilley took either some risk,
initiative or was allowed to enter his replies without extensive
official review.
My point is that Mary Madden may not be in a position to simply
enter her reply without making it "official" first. For those of
you unhappy about this, what POSITIVE suggestion can you offer to
help the DCU communicate better through this conference?
| |||||