Conference 7.286::dcu

>        In response to requests for more open and proactive 
>        communication, DCU is attempting to become a direct participant 
>        in the DCU notes file.  This process, however, may take as long 
>        as three months.  Therefore, until our request is granted, we 
>        plan to communicate via the DCU notes file moderator. 
    
    Why can't DCU (BOD?) participate in this conference now?  Why should it
    take "as long as three months." and what is the request that was made?
    
-Andy

    
    re: -1 
    
    	DCU have to get approvals from DEC to be able to access the
    notesfile. This conference belongs to Digital and not DCU and like any
    other conference is for internal use only. 
    
    	DCU is actively working the issue of having direct access to the
    conference. The process will take a while as it is not a matter of
    giving them permission, but it is most likely also a matter of working 
    details as to where the conference will be located, and how will DCU
    will access it. Questions like..will they have access to the network,
    will they just dial up....Digital Systems Security people will have to 
    be involved. It is not as simple as it might appear.
    
    	I know this is being worked and it had taken this long to initiate
    some action, we can live with another 3 months. 
    
    Nisreen Sunnaa
    Conference moderator.
    
    PS:
       	I think it is worthwhile noting here that DCU is making the effort
    to have a direct access to the notesfile and to be proactive in the
    conference and to me that is saying that they finally are paying
    paying attention.
    
    
    

so they can participate in the conference anytime they want.  Chuck on the
other hand isn't, so he can't.  That has a simple answer too.  Contractors have
access to notes files, so make Chuck a contractor to Digital at an hourly
rate of $0.00.

Bob

    
    >it is most likely also a matter of working details as to where 
    >the conference will be located
    
    	Not exactly sure of what this means but please don't move the 
    conference or place it under somebody elses control.  IMO, it must 
    remain independent of DCU and/or the DCU BoD.
    
    	I welcome more true communication.  I hope DCU is ready to
    communicate openly and honestly, answering any and all questions posed
    to it by the membership.  I hope they do not lapse into the mode of
    selective answering with double speak.  I hope they have learned we
    expect better than that.  So here's to a new era in DCU-Membership
    communications.
    

I'm glad to see DCU showing some willingness to participate in this
conference.  I don't understand the issue of having to go through all
sorts of bureaucratic manuevering so that they can participate.

All the members of the BoD are Digital employees and as such have the right
to participate in this conference.  I'm sure that Susan Shapiro, Mark
Steinkrauss, and others have read the notes in here before, and I'm sure
they watched what was in here prior to the Special Meeting.

I'd like to invite and encourage all the members of the BoD to "come on 
in, the water's fine!"  If you come here and communicate with us in an
open way, then I'm sure most people here will respond to you in kind.

I also agree with Phil's posting in .4.  This conference needs to remain
independent, and not under the control of DCU (or under control of any 
body else other than our fine employer).

./chris

I don't expect to see the BOD to be entering into the notes file.

I would like to see more entries, with them expressing not only the
BOD ideas, but also their own individual comments (especially if they
disagree with the BOD concensus).

What I do think we will see is that someone at DCU Headquarters will be 
responsible for reading, and possible answering questions raised here.  
This is where the problem arises..  They are not DEC employees, and they 
need to work out the special problems.

I will say, THANK YOU, it is nice to hear from you... 

	I would assume that by direct access to the conference by the DCU
	they mean to put in place something that allows access to DCU members
	and/or employees who are not Digital employees. This may in fact
	require some serious work as Digital's security policies around outside
	access are rather strong. As long as we retain the ability to create
	a conference inside Digital a conference outside, even on a DCU owned
	machine, will have to be "open". Or else it will die. I don't see that
	as a serious concern. Checks are in place for Notes. 

	Yes, members of the BoD can access this conference directly as Digital
	employees. I can understand why they would be careful about doing so.
	Things that they say/write a BoD members may commit the DCU in ways
	not intended. Also if these BoD members are not regular Notes users
	they may feel uncomfortable writing here. This is far for rare. The
	average Notes conference has 8-10 people who *never* write in it for
	every 1 who does.

	I view this as a step in the right direction. Some may say "too little
	to late to slow." And it is their right to say so but this conference
	has become a "hot" place and you can't expect people to jump in knowing
	that they may get burned really quickly. I suspect that after the
	election who ever is on the BoD will feel a little more confortable
	here as they'll know exactly how much support they have from the
	membership at large.

			Alfred

�I'd like to invite and encourage all the members of the BoD to "come on 
�in, the water's fine!"  If you come here and communicate with us in an
�open way, then I'm sure most people here will respond to you in kind.
    
    ...as long as you agree with the opinion of the vocal majority.
    
    I wouldn't mind seeing the conference moved to a node that can handle
    the traffic.  During the Special Meeting arrangements/discussion, it
    was impossible at times to access the conference.

    
    
    re: -1
    
    Any node you move the conference to would have the same problem with
    network limitations. As I said before (somewhere) it is not the system
    it is the network..
    
    Nisreen
    

    For DCU to have access to the notes file, various things must happen:

     1) Ok, from some entity (manager/VP etc.).  This person is responsible.
     2) However DCU is given access (couple different ways), that they can
        access ONLY the DCU notes file and nothing else on the network.
     3) Various other small misc. items (hardware etc.)

    Item 2 is the one that will take a couple months to iron out.

    Give it some time and it will happen.  The External Access Committee
    must be convinced that our network is not at jeopardy and is safe.

    

    
    	Re: .10 (et.al.)
    
    	Item 2 shouldn't take much time to work out at all.  DEC recently
    announced the DECsecurityGate product that allows a VMS-host-based
    routing node to act not only as a router between two sets of nodes, but
    to also act as a filter to allow certain accesses and to disallow
    others.  All they would need is a microVAXII, for example, to connect
    the Digital network to DCU's and to have the following done in the
    DECsecurityGate program (comments on what they do are in brackets):
    
    	define group dcu_nodes a,b,c,d,e,f,g
    
    		[ This defines a list of nodes that will go under the group
    		  name "dcu_nodes" for easier reference later. ]
    
    	set rule allow_dcu permit from dcu_nodes on outside to beirut on -
          inside object notes days all hours all
    
    		[ This rule permits DECnet connections from the defined
    		  list of DCU nodes to only node Beirut and only for
    		  purposes of accessing the Notes object on a 7x24 basis.]
    
    Having only this rule defined limits the incoming (from Digital's
    perspective) network connections to only Notes on Beirut and permits
    nothing to go in the other direction since no rule explicitly permits
    outgoing connections.  If the powers-that-be wanted to explicitly
    stop outgoing connections, all they have to add is another rule that
    says:
    
    	set rule nothing_out deny * on inside to * on outside object *
    	  task * days all hours all
    
    Adding this doesn't functionally change the effective rules, but it
    does make it clearer that no outgoing connections are to be permitted.
    (If no rule permits a connection, it is denied.  If one rule permits a
    connection but another DENY rule matches, the denial takes precidence.)
    
    	Now, if DCU didn't trust Digital to manage the rules on this node,
    DCU could also have a DECsecurityGate equipted node on _their_ side
    of the connection.  A connection could only work if both sides
    specified a rule that permitted it.  Likewise, either side could change
    the permitted connections by changing the rules on their side without
    having to trust the other side to change their rules.
    
    	The overhead involved in this is virtually unmeasurable.
    
    	If you need more info on how this product might help in granting
    DCU access to this notesfile, the product manager is Ken ATEIS::Linell.
    Tell him I sent you...  (Guess what product I used to work on?  ;-)
    
    							-craig

    I know that the technical side is the easiest.  We're doing Notes
    file sharing thru a secure gateway right here on the ISVNet.  More
    likely, the problem is that there is not a single entity that can give
    the okay and implement it.  DEC groups that are probably involved
    include Security, Digital Telecom, Personnel, Legal, EXARC.
    
    Mark

    Re: .8:
    
!�I'd like to invite and encourage all the members of the BoD to "come on 
!�in, the water's fine!"  If you come here and communicate with us in an
!�open way, then I'm sure most people here will respond to you in kind.
!    
!    ...as long as you agree with the opinion of the vocal majority.
    
    I agree.  The water may be fine, but it's probably filled with
    piranhas.
    
    I hope a new conference is established, with access at least OK'd for
    Chuck, and that it is used to conduct business instead of taking pot
    shots at individuals.
    
    I doubt that a forum like this will get active participation by either
    the board or DCU management.

>	The water may be fine, but it's probably filled with piranhas.
    
	Actually, it's filled with disgruntled shareholders. But who's fault 
	is that, ours for being disgruntled, or DCU's for disgruntling us?

>    I doubt that a forum like this will get active participation by either
>    the board or DCU management.

	I do, too, at least with the present board and management. They've
	demonstrated that the concerns of the shareholders are not a priority.

					Tom_K

    I simply don't believe that this particular notes conference is the
    problem.  Yes, it has lots of pot shots (and too high a percentage of
    cheap ones), and lots of sarcasm.  But is there anybody who actually
    believes that a new conference will solve the problem?  Any new
    conference will be announced here, in EasyNet, and in humane::digital,
    and all the present noters will switch over to the new conference.

    And in the new conference, there will now be the same disgruntled DCU
    members who participate here, and assuming that is the "problem" with
    this conference, the same unwillingness to participate by the BoD will
    develop far sooner than later.

    The BoD and others may not be willing to participate in this notes
    conference because of its tone in the past, but the same issues will
    still exist in *any* new conference, and the same attitudes (on both
    sides) will still exist, and they will carry over.  The fault, dear
    Brutus, is not in our conference, but in ourselves.

    Hey, if the BoD really wants to run with the big dogs, they had better
    learn how to tinkle in the tall grass.  If they can't handle us, how on
    earth can we expect them to correctly handle the politics and finances
    of the largest credit union in Massachusetts?  Being on the BoD is no
    job for thin-skinned weenies.  Each member of the BoD should hold sacred 
    the interests of the shareholders, should honor the letter and intent of 
    the bylaws, and should encourage careful and thorough scrutiny of the
    dealings of the BoD with an eye to proving accountability to the
    shareholders, IMHO.  Given the recent and remarkable goings on over the
    past five years I, as a BoD member, would have already fought long and 
    hard to have truth discovered and presented to the shareholders in
    whatever format was available.  (BTW, I'm not running for the BoD.)
    This issue of getting more participation by shareholders in notes
    would have been viewed by me as an opportunity, rather than an
    annoyance.  The noters who are shareholders are not "enemy".  They are
    the owners who are vocal and MIGHT happen to have ideas that are valid.
    At least, during the Special Meeting there were a few hundred people
    who seemed to agree.  These same angry noters seem to be seeking people for
    the BoD who want to see communication opened and not glossed over. 
    
    Several that I've talked to have a very simple position right now.
    It is that they will not vote for an incumbent for the BoD.  And, this
    time they WILL try to learn about the different candidates and pick the
    best ones.  If I were on the Board, I would be trying to get about 14
    more candidates on the ballot.  That way, those who are simply trying
    to vote out the incumbents and who are not informed will be split among
    the other 14 candidates - and the incumbents will then win.  In this
    situation, which I think is likely, the only way that the entire BoD
    will be replaced is if the shareholders in general are informed and the
    elections are fair.  I think every channel available should be used to
    provide information on candidates.
    
    If I were on the BoD and I thought I was the best candidate, I would
    welcome any and all opportunities to compare me to any of the other
    candidates on the ballot.  That includes jumping into notes and
    participating in formal debate.  I might even vote for any BoD
    member that does this.  I can write that only because this would be a
    dramatic change over what has been done in the past and, frankly, I
    don't expect any current BoD member to participate in notes on their
    own or to participate (let alone encourage) any type of formal debate.
    
    
    Steve

    RE: .2  by BEIRUT::SUNNAA 
    
    >DCU have to get approvals from DEC to be able to access the notesfile.
    >This conference belongs to Digital and not DCU and like any other
    >conference is for internal use only. 
    
    At the special meeting, Mr. Cockburn stated that he had been monitoring
    VAXNOTES conferences.  If I had been recognized by the chair, I would
    have asked how he came to be monitoring a Digital Internal Use Only file.
    

The sarcastic tone sometimes evident in this conference is largely due to
the BoD's haughty absence.

Were a BoD member to appear in this conference later this morning the sarcasm
would instantly disappear.  (At least until the BoD member had had a chance to
demonstrate whether any kind of genuine exchange was the goal.)  

"The water's fine" ?  Well, maybe.  There are some strong currents.  But any
BoD member who would make the effort to establish real communication with
the rank and file would do our credit union a lot of good.  (And would, for
heaven's sake, be doing their job.)

Such a BoD member would also be nearly assured of re-election.  I, for one,
cannot understand why no BoD member has seen fit to attempt what so clearly
is a "right thing".

Were they ALL involved in Cape Cod real estate?

Is it a condition of serving on the Board that no individual Board member
is allowed to communicate with the credit union's owners?

    They are probably just heeding the advice of lawyers.

    
    If the BoD and DCU management want to participate in this conference,
    great.  There are many unanswered questions concerning our credit
    union, its activities over the last 6 years and the role the BoD played
    during that time period.  It's nice to know that changes have been
    made to improve things.  Not to have done so after the recent events
    would have been outright negligence.  There is a matter of $10+ million
    that we have lost and it wasn't one person that lost it.
    
    But there are major problems with DCU and the current BoD that
    communication alone may not help.  As a shareholder in the credit union 
    I do not take kindly to being deceived and misinformed.  IMO, this credit 
    union and the BoD has done both in the past and has a lot of trust to 
    regain from its shareholders, if it is even possible.  I see far more 
    marketing and dancing around issues than I do real communication.   I see 
    a credit union which has no problem telling its members to go elsewhere.  
    I see a credit union which acts like a bank, not a credit union.  I see
    a credit union that still implements a draconian information control
    policy which keeps information from the membership.
    
    I just can't help but compare the credit union with the Soviet Union. 
    Expecting entrenched Communist bureaucrats to radically change a system 
    which they helped build and which supports them, is totally
    unrealistic.  True change and reform came only when a new cast of
    players came forward that offered a new direction, new hope.  I see the
    future of OUR credit union much the same way.  Only with a new BoD in
    place can DCU truly move forward and in a direction which benefits its
    members.  There are many qualified DCU members that can provide DCU
    with the new leadership it so desperately needs.  
    
    Here's to a "Free DCU in '92"!
    

    >	Item 2 shouldn't take much time to work out at all.  DEC recently
    >announced the DECsecurityGate product that allows a VMS-host-based
    >routing node to act not only as a router between two sets of nodes, but
    >to also act as a filter to allow certain accesses and to disallow
    >others.  All they would need is a microVAXII, for example, to connect
    >the Digital network to DCU's and to have the following done in the
    >DECsecurityGate program (comments on what they do are in brackets):
    
    I am aware of this product plus various others that will do the job. 
    It takes time to go through red tape and get all the various
    agreements.
    
    I would suggest that everyone keep on noting, realizing that in the
    future DCU will be online.
    
    	- mark

In a previous note, I wrote "Come on in, the water's fine."
Several noters have taken that remark and twisted it into
the notion that people are welcome here as long as they form
part of the vocal majority.  Others have indicated that any
DCU BoD member who notes here would be eaten alive by angry
shareholders.

Yes, I agree with you in that this conference runs on the caustic
side from time to time.  And yes, if you don't have a thick skin
you might find some of the talk offensive.  But I do believe that
a BoD member who decided to note here would be welcome if they
came here in the spirit of open communication, and wrote candidly
about their opinions on certain issues.

The flaming begins in earnest when somebody takes a high & mighty,
"I'm better than the little people" attitude.  The BoD, perhaps
in spite of themselves, has come off sounding this way far too much,
and that has been what attracted the flames.  Also, their 
unwillingness to comment (or even refuse to comment) on issues that
are of obvious importance to the shareholders makes it easy to
assume that they're guilty as charged - and then the flames REALLY
begin.

If somebody from DCU comes here, creates a note and says "These are
the subjects I am free, and willing, to discuss," then I'm certain
that the majority of noters here will listen and respond in kind.
There's a small minority of flamers who will undoubtedly want to
take out their insecurities on fellow noters, but these people
should not be allowed to detract from substantive discussions.

Many people here do not believe their best interests have been
served by the current management and directors of DCU.  And while
the BoD may not be able to change people's bottom-line opinion,
they may be able to at least establish an on-going dialog with
their shareholders.

That this conference is hosted on a node named BEIRUT is of
particular amusement in light of the factionalization and strong
current of absolute hostility exhibited by some noters.  I hope
that we don't succeed in turning this conference into some ghetto
of malcontents while "them who are better than us" go off and
create some pristine, happy notes conference to talk about how
great the DCU is.

/Chris

    The way something/someone is perceived can be more important than the
    reality.  This is proved in here all of the time.  The BoD detractors
    perceive all sorts of problems with the DCU and the BoD.  Some of them
    are real, some are speculation.  People looking for both sides of the
    issues are perceived to be supporters of the BoD.  People pointing out
    some of the good aspects of the DCU are perceived to have their head in
    the sand.
    
    The reality is that the BoD doesn't participate in here beyond official
    communications.  This is probably due to a perception on their part
    that they will be verbally abused.  The reality is that we have had
    notes deleted by authors, and contributors disappear after posting a
    few replies because they perceive that they have been verbally abused. 
    Stating that someone is thinskinned is tacitly admitting that barbs are
    being thrown.

Two comments on .25, which I hope will not be taken as criticism:

1)  Stating that someone is thinskinned is admitting that barbs are
*perceived* to be thrown.  In some cases, barbs really were thrown, but
in other cases, the missing notes are from people whose own words were
far stronger than any of the replies.  I agree that there's a perception
problem, and that some noters are quick to assume one supports the board
when one speaks in their favor, but it works both ways -- there are also
people who found barbs in notes whose authors carefully tried to use none,
and there are people who felt they were being accused of supporting the
Board when those who responded really didn't mean that.  Misunderstandings
are easy in printed communications media, and the only cures are to either
state no strong opinions or to avoid having too thin a skin.  

2)  Mark Steinkrauss' stated opinion of why he doesn't enter notes is that
it is his job to communicate with all 88,000 members, not with the small
minority who use the notes file.  He may also have legal or other reasons 
for being a read-only noter, but I don't think his refusal to enter personal
notes here is because of a fear of verbal or written abuse.  Nor do I
think that there would be many abusive replies to a note he entered that
communicated information about the DCU.  If there were, I'm sure the
moderator would hide them.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- I guess I'm lucky.  I've entered a fair number of notes saying
good things about the DCU (and even several saying good things about 
Board members!) but those have not gotten me into any trouble.  It's
the ones critical of Board members that have gotten me flamed --
though mostly in private rather than in the notes file.  

    Larry, I think we are in somewhat of an agreement.  My point was that
    the way things are perceived often times has more clout that the
    reality.  We're hearing that all the time in the business front these
    days.  If you are going to survive, we have to listen to the customer. 
    They may be dead wrong about what they think about our products and not
    buy them, but the bottom line is that they still won't buy them until
    we change their perception.
    
�Nor do I
�think that there would be many abusive replies to a note he entered that
�communicated information about the DCU.  
    
    Based on the responses to DCU communication in this notesfile, I would
    have to disagree.  The BoD has been called incompentent at the least
    and thieves and liars at the worst.  Communications have been dissected
    and played backwards to look for hidden messages and motivations.  Some
    of it may not have been abusive, but most of it was certainly hostile. 
    People were outraged when the BoD accused them of being witch hunters,
    yet didn't see anything wrong with linking the BoD with the old Soviet
    Regime.
    
    This notesfile will not accomplish much unless folks can remain
    objective and try to tone down the emotions.

re: .25

I don't believe that someone who praises the DCU necessarily has their head in
their sand, or someone who is looking for both sides of the issue is 
automagically a proponent of the current board.

Folks who write something like "DCU is a wonderful place, the Board is terrific,
and anybody who thinks otherwise is an ignorant dolt" will be perceived to be
a proponent of the board.  Someone who looks to both sides of the issue is not
automatically considered a proponent.  I've commented in several places on both
sides of the issue, and I've seen others who are severely critical of the BoD
rise to comment on their behalf when warranted.

The term "verbal abuse" is interesting to think about.  What you might consider
verbal abuse another might consider appropriate commentary.  One of the troubles
with notes is that with the exception of smily faces :-), frowning faces :-(,
*emphasis*, and SHOUTING, there really isn't any way to express the emotion or
sentiment present when someone makes a comment.  If you and I were having an
intense, but friendly debate, and I said "Oh, for crying out loud in the
foothills, that's the most RIDICULOUS thing I've *ever* heard!" you might see me
laughing, or rolling my eyes, or doing something else to convey a friendly, or
at least lightening-up attitude.  You can't see that in notes.  It happens here,
and in many other forums - someone writes something, a reply is made, and before
you know there's a flame war in full progresss.  These things wouldn't escalate
if everyone were talking face to face.

I'm not above the fray, or better than anybody else here.  I've made my share
of strong remarks, or goaded some people from time to time.  But I really believe
that if someone shows up here and tries to convey their point of view in a 
rational, open way they will be respected.  No, if a Director notes here the
immediate response will not be all sweetness and light.  People are frustrated
here, many are angry, and a lot of people are upset because they feel like 
they're getting incomplete information.  On the other hand, I wouldn't expect
everyone to turn responses to a Director's open communication into a feeding
frenzy.

I would welcome the opportunity to communicate one-on-one with Directors, or
at least have the opportunity to respond to them in a notes forum.  I probably
won't be on their side, but I will at least try to understand their point of
view and respond to them based on the issues.

./chris

    As to the issue of hostility, close scrutiny and criticism of BoD
    communications, this attitude is justified.  We have been lied to and
    misled by the BoD.  This has been carefully and widely documented.  They 
    have shown themselves to be typically slow in coming forth with 
    aknowledgement and apology when they have been caught.  Even after this, 
    they have established a pattern of being slow to correct themselves.  IMO, 
    the current Board has earned its current place in the hearts of 
    shareholders and has nobody else to blame.  They have seemingly betrayed 
    the trust placed in them and that will take a long time to correct, 
    assuming a significant number of them remain in office.  It seems doomed 
    in that this need to restore trust over the long term is exacerbated by 
    their apparent inability to make corrections quickly.  At times, it has 
    seemed as though they simply hope the problem$ will go away, and maybe 
    they will if attitudes don't change significantly.
    
    I like DCU.  That's what makes this whole thing painful.
    
    Steve

    
RE: .27
    
>    days.  If you are going to survive, we have to listen to the customer. 
>    They may be dead wrong about what they think about our products and not
>    buy them, but the bottom line is that they still won't buy them until
>    we change their perception.
    
    Wrong.  The customer is ALWAYS right.  The reason WE all have jobs is
    because of them.  Similarly, the reason DCU exists is because of us. 
    If you think the customer is wrong, then you aren't listening closely
    enough or they lack information which you possess and must convey.  The
    last statement applies to DCU in the current situation.
    
    
>    The BoD has been called incompentent at the least and thieves and 
    >liars at the worst.  
    
    And rightly so in some instances.  There is no lack of documentation to
    support some of these statements.  But I don't recall anybody calling
    them thieves.
    
    >Communications have been dissected
>    and played backwards to look for hidden messages and motivations.  
    
    But the "communications" they issue have been proven to be full of 
    half truths and twisted to their benefit.  People are looking for the 
    other half of the story that they haven't been given.  We don't need 
    and don't want marketing hype from our credit union.  Thus the 
    continuous and on-going calls for open and complete communications.
    
    
>    People were outraged when the BoD accused them of being witch hunters,
>    yet didn't see anything wrong with linking the BoD with the old Soviet
>    Regime.
    
    The BoD has accused people of "witchhunting" when they have requested
    information to base a judgement on.  The BoD has instead offered us the
    judgement and expects us to accept it.  The current information control
    policies of the credit union and their attempts to control
    communications media (even into DEC territory) puts them right in line
    with the old Soviet regime.  It certainly is not the norm in this
    country.
    
>    This notesfile will not accomplish much unless folks can remain
>    objective and try to tone down the emotions.

    Emotions are all too often read into replies by the readers.  As has
    been said, what would be no problem face-to-face can be a problem when
    reduced to simple text on a screen.
    

�The customer is ALWAYS right.  The reason WE all have jobs is
�    because of them.  
    
    Gee, I wish I had said that.  Wait a minute.  I DID say that.

    
>    "They may be dead wrong about what they think about our products"
    
    Was it in .27?  I was referring to the above statement.

�    Was it in .27?  
    
    The words "The Customer is always right" were not in .27.  The idea
    that the customer is always right was certainly in .27.  Read the rest
    of the paragraph and not just the statement you pulled out.

    
    RE: .33
    
    Sorry, I didn't get that from reading it (several times).  I guess
    we agree that the customer is always right.  So if we're customers AND
    OWNERS, then we must be positively correct... 8-)
    

    Is this clearer?  I'm not trying to make a statement about DCU.  I'm
    trying to make a statement about the importance of people's
    perceptions.
    
    We have good products as measured by industry standard testing.
    
    Customer thinks we have bad products.
    
    We have a problem - not the customer.  We need to change his
    perception by doing things to our product to make him think we have
    good products.

    Ahhh yes, we have the right perception and the customer has a
    bad perception.  So we have to change the customer's perception.
    
    I want to sell a car ... the engine doesn't run well, it is dirty.
    
    Consumer mag says this is a great used car
    
    Customer's perception ... not for me
    
    I clean and wax the car ... engine still doesn't run
    
    Customer's perception ... looks smart I'll buy it
    
    Customer drives the car down the road ... engine blows up
    
    Customer's perception ... heap of junk and I got swindled ... I'll
    never buy a car there again.
    
    We changed the customer's perception to make him think we had a good
    product that matched what the "industry" implied ... What's wrong ?
    
    Obvious isn't it ... we still didn't have a good product.  It's easy
    to change the customer's perception, but it's more important to have
    a good product.
    

    
    RE: .36
    
    I agree.  Calling something a 'perception problem' is an avoidance IMO.
    
    
    "industry standard testing" <> "good product for the customer".
    
    "Product that does what customer NEEDS" = "good product for the customer".
        ('needs' as defined by the customer and nobody else)
    
    
    Well, now that we've chased this topic down the proverbial
    rathole, let's get back on track.  If I could only remember what the
    track was...

Of course, both lines of this perception discussion are correct.  The
customer's perceptions ARE reality.  Changing the customer's perception
requires both fixing the product, and selling your message about your
product.  E.g., Chrysler's dealt with the perception problems of their 
overdrive automatic transmission by fixing it (they say), *and* by winning
back customer trust with a no-deductable warranty.  They went way beyond
the ordinary in order to back up their claim that the problem is over.

Speaking of the Board and perception problems, I think they haven't done
either -- neither made any real changes in how they operate, nor taken
actions to win back the trust of doubtful customers.  Board members have
told me that my concerns are just perception problems -- but if they are,
yelling at me in private and calling me a troublemaker and witchhunter
in public are no way to improve my false perceptions!  Certainly many 
people have urged them to take positive actions to win back our trust,
and they have consistently refused to do so.

Anyway, I'm looking for Board candidates who want to solve both problems --
people who want to do what they can to fix the underlaying problems at the
DCU (and who can see what they are!), and who also want to act in ways that
seek to convince even hostile members that they are trying to do the right
thing, which is to listen to the concerns of the members and then act with
openness and integrity in overseeing the operation of the DCU.  It should
be the Board who takes the initiative to be open with members and act to
allay our bad perceptions -- it really shouldn't be necessary for members to 
beg them to be so.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    Pardon me while I digress back to the basenote.
    
    Does this mean this conf will have a new moderator and/or rules of
    (dis?)order?
    
    Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.......