Conference 7.286::dcu

>    Our decisions were based on business/management experience, education,
>    time/availability, commitment, area of expertise, credit
>    union/financial industry knowledge, volunteer experience, understanding
>    a board's role, reason for applying, and conceptual, decision-making,
>    and communication skills.

	If I may be permitted a moment of immodesty, after reviewing this
	list and the list of qualifications of the nominated candidates as
	reported in the "VOTE FOR A QUALIFIED BOARD" flier I do not understand
	how the Nominating Committee found 9 of them more qualified than me.
	I really don't.  

	Other than the two incumbants none of them have any board experiance.
	I do. And I do believe my finance experiance on those boards exceeds
	the financial experiance of many of the nominated candidates. Are they
	qualified? Probably. But more so than I.

			Alfred

 
    
    Here is a specific reason why Sims' letter was inappropriate:
    
    >DCU's election process allows members to run by petition.  The
    >following candidates were not selected by the nominating committee but
    >have submitted verified petitions:
    
    The report says "allows" therefore carefully and specifically pointing
    out that permission is not endorsement.  Also it carefully states that
    the petition candidates "were not selected" by the nominating
    committee thereby implying that all the petition candidates applied to
    be nominated but were found to be inadequate for some reason.
    
    Steve
    

    I really can't say for sure why the nominating committee chose to
    reject some candidates who seemed to be perfectly qualified.  Perhaps I
    shouldn't speculate, but I will say that while many of the criteria
    that the nominating committee cited seemed reasonable and innocuous,
    one did stand out:  "reason for applying". I am really curious what
    they mean by this.  What "reason for applying" would constitute grounds
    for rejection for nomination?  Would "wishing to implement reforms"
    invalidate a potential candidate? 

    -- Mike

	I would hope that the NC would reject a candidate that simply
	wanted to have "Director, DCU 1992-1994" on their resume.
	Similarly, I would hope that "wresting control of the DCU
	from slimeball directors" would not be a disqualifying reason.

					Tom_K

    
    One candidate by petition was previously nominated a number of times
    but never won a seat; this time, that same candidate was not nominated.
    
    *My pure speculation*; in previous elections, that candidate had only the
    most minute chance of unseating an incumbent. This time, with the
    election being more or less wide open with regard to nominated
    candidates, the risk of that candidate actually being elected was
    unacceptable.
    

    
    I think DCU President Chuck Cockburn was most interested "understanding
    a board's role".  Could he have possibly feared a Board which might
    be a bit more active than he would like?  A Board which might for
    example tell him no checking fees because the membership is firmly
    opposed to it?
    
    The qualifications of decision-making and communication skills should
    have immediately disqualified the incumbents.  Was their documented
    performance considered by this 'independent' Nominating Comm.?  Susan
    Shapiro's statement is even incorrect.  She says DCU has assets of $370
    million.  Even John Sim's knows its really $345 million.  But it USED
    to be $370 million.  But don't worry, she is only the Treasurer of DCU.
    We can't expect her to know such details.
    

RE: .6

Cockburn has already stated that the reason he left his previous CU (Rockwell?)
was because the board "wanted to look over his shoulder at everything [he] did."

Bryan

    Why did this year's Nominating Committee felt they needed to add their
    2� to the candidates' statements?

    How many DCU voters will be swayed by this report?  Which way?

    Why did only one member of the Nominating Committee sign the report?

    If there were no NC report, how many more words could have appears in
    each candidate's statement?

    -- Ward

>
>    Why did this year's Nominating Committee felt they needed to add their
>    2� to the candidates' statements?

One possible reason that things are done in a way different than before is
that this is probably the first time EVERY slot was open for election.
That MIGHT make comparisons with previous years 'apples vs oranges'.

-Joe

    
    RE: .9
    
    I don't understand.  What does the number of open slots on the Board
    have to do with the sudden appearance of a Nominating Comm. Report? 
    What I DO see as different is the presence of petition candidates which
    threaten the hand-picked choices of the Nominating Comm.  Guess they
    just don't like the fact that thousands of DCU members don't trust
    their judgement on what is "best" for DCU.
    
    I find it VERY telling that the general membership was NOT informed of
    DCU President Cockburn's involvement with the Nominating Comm.  People
    reading that statement may conclude that the Nominating Comm. was
    composed of members onlt as in the past.  Little will they know of the
    influence senior DCU management had in the workings of this
    'independent' Nominating Comm.  Again, the membership at large will not
    be given the full story.  It's called 'control of the media'.  Control
    the information and you control what people know, how they think and
    how they act (vote).
    

>    
>    I don't understand.  What does the number of open slots on the Board
>    have to do with the sudden appearance of a Nominating Comm. Report? 

I only offered a possible explanation.  Electing the entire board is NOT the
same situation as electing 2 or 3 members.  In the later case, the existing
members can provide experience to the new ones.  

>    What I DO see as different is the presence of petition candidates which
>    threaten the hand-picked choices of the Nominating Comm.  

That is, of course, another (more likely) explanation.
    
>    be given the full story.  It's called 'control of the media'.  Control
>    the information and you control what people know, how they think and
>    how they act (vote).

They have always had that.  Remember the special meeting? 

    Rep to << Note 501.0 by GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates next week" >>>

>    Our decisions were based on business/management experience, education,
>    time/availability, commitment, area of expertise, credit
>    union/financial industry knowledge, volunteer experience, understanding
>    a board's role, reason for applying, and conceptual, decision-making,
>    and communication skills.

    While looking  over the list of qualifications the NC used in selection
    criteria, one that stands out to me  anyway was time/availability.  All
    the line managers/supervisors I knew in the past  while  working in Mfg
    Eng New Products (my old group) were always complaining about the hours
    they  works,  and  trying  to  find  free  time  during  the  week  for
    themselves/family.    I  always  see reports how High level managers in
    Corporations spend long hours working for their respective companies.
    
    To me  I  would  rather see a board that represented a cross section of
    the membership vs  one that contains nothing but high level managers in
    the Company.  Sure the current board may be able to squeak in 1 meeting
    a month to do DCU business, but to me a BoD member must also be able to
    field questions from the membership, have  impromptu  phone conversions
    (etc) brainstorming on ideas for the DCU  prior  to  official  meetings
    etc.  A board that has representation from  all  ranks can do this, one
    that is heavily loaded with high level Managers may  have to prioritize
    between  trying  to  get  the  DEC the Company turn around  versus  DCU
    business I my opinion, especially in this times.

    Volunteer  Experience was another one, granted I haven't seen  all  the
    150 write up but I thought I read in here  somewhere that the Nominated
    Candidate has little mentioned of outside volunteer experience, whereas
    several  of the  petition  candidates  do.    What  kind  of  Volunteer
    Experience was the NC  looking  for?   Within the Company or Outside in
    the community?
    
    Seems  to  me  someone with experience in the community would be  worth
    while  to  have  on  the board since they would have experience dealing
    with  a  much  broader  base  of  people  and  problems than within the
    company.
    
    Just a  couple  of thought/questions around the NC's criteria list they
    had used.
        
    Claude

    
    RE: .12
    
    Maybe serving on the DCU Board is considered part of the job if you're
    a senior manager with DEC?  Since Mr. Sim's sees it as an employee
    benefit it seems to be a possibility.  
    
    And we still haven't heard whether any of the nominated candidates were 
    recruited to run.  Now how does recruitment (which is encouraged in 
    DCU Election Guidelines) play along with "commitment" and "reason for
    applying"?
    
    Obviously, we will never know the answers to many of these questions.

re:  .12

>    the line managers/supervisors I knew in the past  while  working in Mfg
>    Eng New Products (my old group) were always complaining about the hours
>    they  works,  and  trying  to  find  free  time  during  the  week  for
>    themselves/family.    I  always  see reports how High level managers in
>    Corporations spend long hours working for their respective companies.

The way I see it, if an individual doesn't have 40-50 hours per month
available to give to DCU matters, then that individual should not
consider Board membership.

The new Board will have a lot to do:  mending fences, building bridges,
ramping up on a mountain of legislation and regulation, ramping up
on DCU's current legal posture, in-depth analysis of the financials,
etc, etc.  And that's before the new Board even begins to conduct
normal business and begin to work on restoring member confidence and
mapping a new strategic direction.

I'm planning, if elected, to probably committing a couple evenings
each week, and a good long day over the weekend, in addition to normal
day-time activities like attending Board meetings, interacting with 
other members, and taking care of other business, in order to be a 
good Board member.

My $0.02 worth,
./Chris

>The new Board will have a lot to do:  mending fences, building bridges,
>ramping up on a mountain of legislation and regulation, ramping up
>on DCU's current legal posture, in-depth analysis of the financials,
>etc, etc.  And that's before the new Board even begins to conduct
>normal business and begin to work on restoring member confidence and
>mapping a new strategic direction.

	The new board should consider that there is now considerable 
	interest in the DCU among the membership. I'd hope that the
	new Board will take advantage of this interest by seeing if
	there are a few folks who would serve on say, a committee
	to re-write the By-laws, etc. I think an honest request
	for help would get some volunteer help, now that peoples
	interest is up.

					Tom_K

    
    Re: .14
    
    > The way I see it, if an individual doesn't have 40-50 hours
    > per month available to give to DCU matters, then that individual
    > should not consider Board membership.
    
    Whoa!  Slow down, Chris.  What makes you think this should take up
    40-50 hours per month!  Maybe in the beginning but if that turned out
    to be the norm, then IMO, the BoD would be getting involved in detail
    where they didn't belong.  It is not their job to run the DCU day to
    day, that is what Chuck Cockburn is paid to do.
    
    Steve
    

Yes, I bet that figure is for the beginning. There will be lots of
free and unredacted things to look over to try to figure out what
happened. After that, things should slow down. Remember, (hopefully) all
of the board will be new so there won't be some old board members to help
transition the new members. That lack of continuity would normally be
a major disadvantage, but this year is essential.

re: .16, .17

Agree with you there Steve.  Fortunately, DCU ***IS*** run day-to-day
by paid professionals.  And I certainly don't want to be chasing
anybody off by hounding them every step of the way.  I would HOPE not
to be spending that much time down the road, but in the early stages,
there's much to do.

Note that anybody coming on the Board is going to be in the midst of
an abnormal time, what with DCU's litigation in progress, and DCU in
the middle of some pretty substantive changes.

I hear your concern, Steve.  Believe me, I don't want to run DCU day
to day!  

./Chris

    Note 501.4 has been set hidden by the moderator, Steve Sherman. He
    has done this in a proactive way, not because any direct complaint
    has been sent to him. Today, I did send Steve a memo indicating that
    Mr. Ron Glover has objected to 501.4 in a memo to Tom_K's manager and
    personnel representative.
    
    Tom does not believe that the P&P has been violated. Nor do I, and
    the moderator has given me permission to quote this agreement with us.
    
    It is my opinion that Mr. Glover is trying to put pressure on Tom_K
    because of Tom's recent efforts at ZKO to fully understand the P&P
    in regards to "work areas". Reference Digital note 1831.3. I also
    have seen the memo that Tom references in that note, and I came to
    the conclusion that Ron Glover considers the toilet areas work areas,
    and other incongruities.
    
    I do not understand why Mr. Glover can not issue a public statement
    regarding this P&P interpretation issue, rather than privately
    attacking individuals.
    
    This is all my personal opinion. I can see no reason for him
    to have gone to someone's manager.
    
    Is there a precedent for this? Do people of Ron Glover's status
    usually write to a person's manager when they don't like a note?
    Has anyone else out there gotten into trouble with their manager
    over a note? Is there a "normal procedure" for a "bad" note? What
    would one ususally do if they objected to, or found, a note that
    they thought violated the P&P? Is the procedure to go to the
    moderator? Have the moderator hide it? Give the writer a chance
    to delete, clarify, or change it?
    
    
    JMHO,
    
    Janet
    

    I have read and reread note 501.4, and I can't find anything wrong with
    it either.  It is absolutely clear it is a hypothetical statement that
    a hypothetical candidate might write, and it is part of a discussion of
    what motives the DCU nominating committee might reasonably approve of.
    
    In order to show what is being argued about, I have reposted the note
    with the one possible objectionable word replaced by xxxxxx. You can
    decide for yourself whether or not xxxxxx in that context is a
    violation of PP&P.  Again, I believe it is not.
    
    Tom Eggers, DCU co-moderator
    
                <<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 501.4                 Nominating Committee Report                   4 of 19
TOMK::KRUPINSKI "DCU Election: Vote for REAL Choices" 6 lines  17-MAR-1992 13:16
                          -< Two hypothetical cases >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	I would hope that the NC would reject a candidate that simply
	wanted to have "Director, DCU 1992-1994" on their resume.
	Similarly, I would hope that "wresting control of the DCU
	from xxxxxx directors" would not be a disqualifying reason.

					Tom_K

    Re: .19
    
    The normal accepted way to deal with a possibly objectionable note is:
    
    (1) The objector discusses the note with the author.
    
    (2) If (1) does not result in resolution, the objector can take his
    case to a moderator of the conference.  It is my understanding from
    PP&P and Ron Glover's own memos on ths subject that Digital expects the
    moderators of conferences to do the right thing.
    
    If all else fails, then it might be reasonable to go to personnel, but
    to start at the top of personnel is not doing the right thing.
    
    Tom Eggers, DCU co-moderator

    
    RE: .21
    
    Maybe some people don't *want* to use the normal means of resolving
    these issues because it does not have the desired impact on the
    'offender'.  I will leave it to each of us to figure out what that
    desired impact may be.
    
    Now let's all give our current Board a round of applause for their
    outstanding performance in 1991.  (Nobody can accuse me of not knowing
    what I am expected to think.)
    

    I have seen the note from Ron Glover and I also feel that he is 'working
    the system' to get back force Tom to pull back, IMHO.

    Some facts.

     1) The original note was written close to a month ago.
     2) Tom recently sent a message to Ron Glover trying to get
        clarifications on where posters and the like could be posted.
     3) Almost a month after Tom's Posting #1, Ron Glover sends mail
        to Tom's local personal person and his manager, about his note.
        This is VERY unusual, IMO. The timing causes me to wonder what is
        going on.
        Maybe Ron had been planning this for a while.  Maybe someone
        brought it to his attention.  I looked at the date on the letter
        and Ron wrote in on April 6th.

    I have read Tom's note and I also do not feel that there is a problem
    with it.  I think Ron needs to clarify what is actually wrong with it.

    	-mark

Some days, it's just darn near impossible not to see conspiracies.

�-)

    Donning moderators hat and acting in my position as moderator of this
    conference.
    
    I have unhidden note 501.4. There was some speculation as to whether it
    violated P&P. I have read it over and consulted the magic orangebook.
    In no way can I see that it violates P&P. It clearly talks about a
    totally hypothetical situation (refer to the title). P&P does not
    prevent notes on hypothetical situations from being entered in
    notesfiles.
    
    Dave

	RE .22, 23, 24:

		"Winston realized that he loved Big Brother."
	
	More Victory Gin, anyone?  Might make all this easier to swallow.


	MM

    Hypothetical situations or not, the adjective used to describe the
    current DCU directors is clearly inflammatory and in poor taste.  While
    I'm certainly not an advocate for the current BoD, to characterize any
    of its members in that fashion is, IMO, in violation of Digital
    Policies and Proceedures.  I believe you should re-think your decision
    to reveal the note in question.
    
    /Ed

I saw no adjective in 501.4 that was used to describe the current DCU directors.

This strongly parallels a problem I found myself in.  The question is:
should the interpretation that people read into a statement be considered
when evaluating policy violations, or should the strict sense of the words
be used instead?

The note in question does not, in fact, make any statement about any past,
present, or future directors.  It speculates about what the Nominating
Committee should do IF a candidate has a certain attitude.

Those who object to this note are apparently reading into it that the
author personally holds the hypothetical attitude expressed in the note.
They are inferring this.  The note doesn't say what the author thinks
of the Board, it only says what he thinks a nominating committee should do.


Now, it would clearly be beyond the line for someone to make as a statement
the hypothetical opinion expressed in that note.  And if the purpose of
posting that note were to get off a sly dig at the current directors,
then I would agree that the note should be set hidden.

But that's not the point of that note.  The point is: does the Nominating
Committee bias its selection against candidates who have uncomplimentary
opinions of the current Board members?  The note says "I hope not".


Sure, it would have been possible to enter that note without the particular
word.  But really, folks!  Do we need to turn all of our language into
carefully processed mush to pass policy review?  Can't we avoid reading
things into logical arguments?  Look at how many words it has taken me to
write what I hope is an iron-clad within-policy restatement of *half* of
note .4!  That note is only four lines long -- it expresses a valid concern, 
and it expresses it clearly and concisely.  I really hope that Digital can
avoid feeling threatened by a note like that.

	Yours sincerely,
	Larry Seiler

    Re .27
    
    Note .4 says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the current board of directors.
    Please look up the word 'hypothetical' in a handy dictionary. It is
    totally unfair and wrong to hold an author responsible for something
    someone chooses to read into an author's writings, when no such thing was
    said.
    
    Dave

    An hypothetical rationale for running for the DCU Board was presented,
    i.e., "wresting control of the DCU from <adjective deleted> directors." 
    Use of that particular adjective is offensive at face value, and more
    appropriate for a conference like SOAPBOX (if at all); presentation of
    the rationale as simply hypothetical is merely obfuscation.
    
    /Ed

    Re: .27
    
    I have reviewed 501.4 at least two dozen times at this point. To me, it
    is still very clearly hypothetical and I have trouble seeing how
    anybody who reads the complete note, including the title, can come to
    another conclusion.

    But I know that they do even if I don't understand the reasoning. I
    have received one VAXmail message, and Ron Glover says (I talked to
    him) he has received a few, from people who believe the note is
    objectionable. Note .27 is another, so the total is up to five or so.
    (I am not taking a vote or a survey.)

    The problem I now have as moderator is to distinguish between those who
    might be directly affected, in this case the members of the present
    DCU BoD, and others who aren't personally affected and are merely
    expressing their opinions.  I will give far more weight to those
    directly affected, but I haven't heard from any of them directly or
    indirectly. Until I do, the note will stay visible.  I am not willing
    to hide what are to me clearly innocuous notes based on the opinion of
    five people out of 100K who are not directly affected.  That would mean
    that anybody could cause anything to be hidden or deleted.

    Tom Krupinski is trying to determine directly from Ron Glover what the
    precise objections are, and, if warranted, I'm sure Tom will take
    appropriate action himself.  Let's let Tom deal with the issue.  It
    sure would help if the objectors didn't choose to remain anonymous.
    Passions are high, and that doesn't make things easier either.

    Tom Eggers, DCU co-moderator

    Re: .32
    
    >> presentation of the rationale as simply hypothetical is merely
    >> obfuscation.
    
    Well, I am not a mind reader, and I doubt that the author of .32 is a
    mind reader either. I have talked to Tom Krupinski, and I believe what
    he tells me: the case *was* intended to be hypothetical.
    
    Tom Eggers, DCU co-moderator

    >But that's not the point of that note.  The point is: does the
    >Nominating Committee bias its selection against candidates who have
    >uncomplimentary opinions of the current Board members?  The note says
    >"I hope not".
    
    Said that way, there is nothing offensive.  Characterizing anyone as
    <adjective deleted>, as was done in 501.4 (albeit to drive the point
    home), however, is vulgar to some and therefore in violation of P&P.
    
    /Ed

    Re .35
    
    Again. I may be being dense or something. When a person is
    discussing a hypothetical situation by definition the situation does
    not pertain to any real situation so it is impossible for real people
    to be impugned, whatever is described in that hypothetical situation.
    If the author had intended to make a direct comment about current
    board members he wouldn't have EXPLICITLY called out his note as
    describing two hypothetical situations.
    
    I admit that people often skim notes and think they say something
    totally different to what they actually say. But that is the
    fault/responsibility of the reader not the writer.
    
    Maybe we should take this note to the JOYOFLEX conference.
    
    Dave

    I believe that .4 no more categorizes any of the current board
    as <something bad> then John Sims letter endorses the nominated
    slate. If I'd written it I'd probably delete it right after John
    Sims sent out his letter saying that he didn't mean to imply that
    the nominated candidates were any better than the petition ones. :-)

    Seriously I can see how people might think Tom was calling people
    names and that John was endorsing the nominated candidates. But
    if John Sims wants me to take him at his word I assume he will
    also take Tom at his. Fair is fair. And if John Sims is a fair 
    person, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, I expect him to
    side with Tom. Why would I think anything else?

    			Alfred

    I'm not sure of policy, but I would hope that if someone
    complains about the content of a note, the original author
    would just reword the note to alleviate the complaint.

    I can think of plenty of adjectives to substitute for
    <adjective deleted> that would be equally damning...such
    as 'current' or 'incumbent' or any other adjective implying
    'the board memebers responsible for the mess in which the DCU
    finds itself'.
    bob

With all that has happened as a result of Tom K.'s note, I'd like to commend 
the moderators for standing their ground. This is one rare case I have seen 
where those moderating a conference have shown some backbone and not just 
copped out by hiding a note. Practically anything that happens in writing or
in person can be offensive to someone. As I've said before and will say again, 
I hold the individual responsible for his or her statements, not the 
moderators.

regards,

Jim

    re: .38
    
    The note is not referring to the "current" or "incumbent" board
    of DCU. Why do you think it is? Why would anyone relate Tom's
    note to our current Board of Directors? That sentence with
    "the adjective" in it, I thought, was a "worst case senario", which
    would call for extreme exaggeration. I wonder why everyone looks
    at the current BoD when reading it?
    
    Just MHO,
    
    Janet
    

    In this war of words, I find it interesting that explicitly calling
    folks "witchhunters" is okay and implicitly calling folks "slimeballs"
    is not.  In the whole, I think it really doesn't matter whether or not
    insults are implicit or explicit.  It doesn't really matter whether
    campaigning is done using e-mail, notes, Livewire, mailings or work
    areas.  Most people really don't care.  The ones who seem to care about
    these matters most are the folks involved with the campaigning.  Most
    shareholders really don't care how communication happens.  I think most
    people care THAT communication happens.  
    
    One good thing about this whole process is that, as a shareholder, my
    perception (just from my point of view) is that I've read/seen/heard
    enough to be concerned about the BoD election, to care, and to
    carefully consider all the candidates before voting.  One thing that
    shareholders are doing as a result is waking up to the fact that they
    need to study the issues and vote after considering all options.  They
    really don't care about the issues involving the campaigners, but I
    think they do care about the fact that they can and need to make real
    choices this time around.  
    
    Several have already expressed deep appreciation for the efforts of a few 
    to bring these things to light so that they can be dealt with out in the 
    open.  I hope this trend continues.  In spite of the fact that people
    don't like what and how things are being said, it is refreshing that
    there IS some open communication going on.  Open communication is
    something that most of us in the trenches care deeply about.  We need
    more of this at Digital.
    
    Steve

    re: <<< Note 501.40 by XCUSME::LEVY >>>
                  -< Our BoD??? Not! >-

>    The note is not referring to the "current" or "incumbent" board
>    of DCU. Why do you think it is? 

    This is all interpretation.....and if someone can interpret
    the note in a way that implies 'name calling', then I think
    the objection is justified.

    clearly when we've been effectively calling them that (and worse)
    in most of the notes in this conference, I think its a little
    silly to susddenly adopt the posture 'Who, me?'

    We're accusing Sims of campaigning for the current board through
    out interpretation of his message...and we're offended when
    Ron Glover defends it with his 'on the face of it' remark.
    I dont see the diffference here.
    bob

I don't know if this is the proper discussion to enter this, but I'll give it
a try.

It is disappointing that most members haven't had any opportunity to meet with
most of the candidates, both nominated and RC.  Since I work in the same
building with Claire Muhm, a nominated candidate, I was particularly impressed
with her.  She impressed me as being a concerned person and, in my oppinion,
would be a very good member of the BoD if elected.  It will really be dis-
appointing if the votes show she is #8 out of 7 due possibly in part to her
'labeling' as a nominated candidate.

	First, I'd like to thank all of those who have given me their kind 
	words of support. When you feel intimidated from a high level within 
	the company, the support of ones peers is the best thing one could 
	hope for, and the outpouring of support I have received is far beyond
	anything I had a hope to expect.

	I have many things to say in response to some of the things written
	about 501.4, about how feel, felt, why I used the words I used, etc.
	I do not currently feel safe to say them. In my current situation, I
	feel that anything I write on the subject "can and will be used 
	against me", as the saying goes. I even have some misgivings about 
	posting this reply.

	It is my opinion that I have stumbled over something that is seriously
	broken. I am using the ODP in an attempt to get it fixed. When it is
	fixed, and only then, will I feel comfortable to say my piece. Until 
	then, the dispute about reply 501.4 will be secondary to the real
	problem, of which the dispute about 501.4 is only a symptom.

					Tom_K

	

    
    I am offended that people would try and censor other people's thoughts
    and words.  Therefore, anybody who enters such offensive thoughts
    should be called in and dealt with accordingly.  Irrelevant?  Not
    really since the crux of the problem here is 'what is offensive?'. 
    100 different people would find 100 *different* things offensive. 
    Should all of them be banned?  Only the top 10?  Only the ones
    everybody agrees on?  What is offensive is a personal decision that
    shouldn't be hoisted on somebody else.  We shouldn't be forcing people
    to censor themselves to meet some unattainable goal of 'unoffensive'.
    I also agree that if the actual people who are being referenced have no
    complaint, then others have no basis for complaint.
    
    As for reading into things, the reply in question clearly stated that
    it was hypothetical.  How much more is needed?  A full legal
    disclaimer?  This is all bordering on lunacy if you ask me.  If one
    person interprets something as 'offensive', suddenly the world must
    jump to rectify this gross injustice?  Ridiculous.
    
    So how about letting people enter their words.  Each of us is 
    sensible enough to make our own personal determination,
    misinterpretation, etc.  But that does not give people any right to try
    and get the original writer to censor his words and thoughts.  If you
    feel the need, then communicate with the author.  You might learn
    something or get clarification.  But this business of having a senior
    personnel manager in this company hunting people down on behalf of an
    anonymous 'offendee' is insanity.  Where will it end?  When they come
    knocking on *your* door for a misinterpreted segment in one of your
    replies?
    
    The Sims memo has been carried into the area of censorship IMO.  This
    has dire consequences for everybody if Personnel uses it like this. 
    But no problem, just think 'correctly' and write 'correctly' and there
    will be no problem.  Personnel will knock on your door when your 
    'correctly' does match their 'correctly'.
    

    
    RE: .43
    
    "REAL CHOICES" candidates were at LKG last Friday.  I have personally
    visited MKO, HLO, LMO, NUO & SHR cafeterias at lunch time.  I know
    other RC candidates have been out there too.
    

I went through shades of being offended by the S word in .4, too.  And I
can see how someone skimming through NOTES might see the S word, go ballistic,
and fire off a complaint to Personnel.  (I remain puzzled, however, why
Personnel would initiate unusually vigorous action apparently without looking
into and verifying the complaint.)

But let's recall what Tom's note was attempting to say:  that he (and we!)
would hope that the Nominating committee would not accept a candidate just
because of superficial interest, nor reject a candidate just because that
candidate held an unpopular view.

Tom tried to create that simple message in four lines.  (Worthy goal!  How
many lines have we lesser writers used to water the same ground...)

To do that, he needed an extreme example of superficiality.  (The resume.)
He needed an extreme example of an unpopular view.  (The S word.)  Milder
words would be less unpopular;  they would fail four-line conciseness.

(In addition to reflecting an unpopular view, there's also the fact that
the S word is a bit "colorful".  See below (*)).

Whether or not there might actually BE candidates with unpopular views is
a separate question.  I join Tom in hoping (or wishing) that a Nominating
Committee would not reject candidates solely on that basis.  I join the
moderators in affirming Tom's note as a legitimate part of a legitimate
dialogue.


----------------------------------
(*)  .4 could have used a word less colorful than the S word.  Consider a
     hypothetical variant:

                          -< Two hypothetical cases >-

	I would hope that the NC would reject a candidate that simply
	wanted to have "Director, DCU 1992-1994" on their resume.
	Similarly, I would hope that "wresting control of the DCU
	from incompetent directors" would not be a disqualifying reason.


     The I word is less colorful, and would probably have been less likely to
     have sent a skimming reader complaining to Ron Glover.  But in a way
     it's a more dangerous word.  The jocularity of the S word, IMO, actually
     helps Tom's four-liner remain hypothetical.

     Excellent job, Tom.

    
    I thank the author of reply .41 for being the first to openly type the
    <adjective-deleted> slimeball.  I have a hard time understanding what
    is wrong with using this adjective.  In note 501.4, it is used by a
    hypothetical canidate to describe that hypothetcial canidate's view of
    a hypothetical BoD.  Boy is that explicit.  Anything read in it beyond
    that is the extrapolation of a fantasy to reality (which I find
    objectionable).  Since I find this objectionable, should all notes
    which claim note 501.4 may be referring to reality be set hidden.  I
    think not.  I thank the moderators for their openness, honesty and
    integrety in this matter.
    
    Additionally, what I've seen/read about what is happenning to Tom K.
    seems cause for alarm.  The outcome of his ordeal will be an
    *EXTREMELY* strong indicator of whether the ODP works or not.  Also,
    Tom's inability to openly express his feelings is a travesty of our
    rights as human beings (especially in these United States).  I wish him
    all the best and will keep a discriminating eye on his efforts with
    respect to the ODP.
    
    ~Jon.

Well, I wasn't going to post to this note again, but...


1)  Will the people defending note .4 please stop?  I think it's all been
said.  There are a **LOT** of people, including some who are very highly
placed in this company, who believe in judging statements by the inferences
they draw from them, rather than based on a strict interpetation of the
words in the statement.  There are also a lot of us who believe in taking
words at their strict face value whenever possible.  I think we need to
agree to disagree on that point, at least in this file, and take it up
with those whose job it is to interpret policy.  


2)  There is a major difference between .4 and the Sims letter -- they
aren't comparable at all.  Note .4 cites an example of an extreme opinion 
that some might hold (although we don't know if the author does) and asks
a question about how the Nom Comm would react to that opinion.  In other
words, it posits a hypothetical (though not unlikely) situation.

There is nothing hypothetical about the Sims letter -- it directly requests 
us to read the Nom Comm's partisan statement in favor of the nominees.  I 
don't think it is appropriate for a Digital VP, speaking as a representative 
of Digital, to direct people to pay special attention to any single partisan
statement, whether in favor of the nominees or of petition candidates.
That is my personal objection to to the Sims letter -- I'm not concerned
with whether or not it violates policy.  And actually, I wouldn't see any
problem with Sims making that statement as a private individual.


3)  An earlier note referred to one nominee as a caring person.  I wouldn't
doubt that claim.  But I think we need to consider what the Board members
will actually *do*, not how they come across.  And we can judge what they
will do by what they have done.  For example, I also spoke with some of
the nominees, and was very impressed by one after he called me to discuss
some issues I had raised.  But then I found out that he was one of the
people secretly sending out the "qualified board" fliers, which (among
other things) included the name and personal information of a nominee 
who had 10 days earlier explicitly refused permission to be named as part 
of that group.  

My point is not to re-raise the issue of the "qualified board" fliers.  My
point is that I discovered that talking with someone and listening to them
say the right things is *NOT* a reliable way to determine what they'll
actually do.  At least not for me.  So please understand that my own
efforts campaigning for Real Choices candidates is not intended to impugn
the opinions or personality of any nominee.  I just think evidence about
what candidates have done is more important.

How does the above relate to the nominating committee report?  The Nom
Comm report focusses on their standards for qualifications.  That's fine
as far as it goes, but most petition candidates are (in my eyes) about as
well qualified as the nominees.  I feel that emphasis on qualifications
misses the really important point -- what will they do as Board members?
We all should make up our own minds about that and vote accordingly.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    Recently, I heard a member of our Law Dept. give a talk that he
    labeled, "Things that cost a Million Dollars."  His slides included
    quotes of internal memos and other written communications that had made
    their way into court cases:  e.g. John Smith, Inc. vs. DEC. 
    Unprofessional language was prevalent in many of these real-life
    examples.  It did not matter that the comments might have been taken
    out of context, or even if they were correct.  He did not tell us the
    outcome of any case, but he made it plain that the memos make it hard
    to convince a judge and jury that DEC is honest and truthful.
    
    Be careful.  There are "Things that cost you your job."
    
    Mark

    Re: .50

    Yes, there are things that can cost you your job.  Or cost me mine. Or
    cost both you and Digital big bucks to defend against even if the
    courts ultimately rule in your favor.  Libel and slander are among
    those things.  Or cause Ron Glover so much grief that he stops
    supporting employee-interest noting.

    Note .4 has caused me considerable difficulty in trying to figure out
    what the right thing to do was for the notes conference, Digital, TomK,
    the DCU BoD, and even myself.  I'm still working on the issue of
    "people directly affected" vs "third party complaints".  The answers
    are not perfectly clear to me.

    I understand about answers not always being perfectly clear. And I
    can see where "peace" would be desired. The remark about the
    nominating committee is overworked and I'm tired of it, too.
    
    But I am not tired of, nor do I understand, and I will never see
    how I will come to accept the fact that my job (read my life...ME)
    should, could, would, or will be in jeopardy by one maybe (maybe
    not) misuse of a word in a notesfile. If Mr. Glover wants to
    call my boss and scare me into thinking I'm about to be put
    on disciplinary action because of anything I say in this notesfile,
    then I'm one who MUST stand up and say "No job has ever been that
    important to me." I'm not being frivolous, nor am I belittling anyone's
    devotion to their job, or their intense desire to continue working.
    
    You just can't let something like that go. It's too big. It will
    stay with you if you don't resolve it somehow. Just backing off
    won't fix it.
    
    Just because I happen to work for a private company does not mean
    that I have to give up some semblance of individual rights that
    are guaranteed to me in this country. I'm not talking about the
    use of "slimeball" - that's a small thing and could easily have
    been changed, discussed, whatever. I'm talking about taking a high
    level "leader" in the company, coming down on you through the
    manager of your group.
    
    What can you possibly do? It is not right to volunteer to leave
    your job when you're intimidated.
    
    It is not right to be forced to leave either.
    
    In my opinion, it is right to stand for what your beliefs are. 
    
    If Ron Glover is capable of stopping noting because of "so much grief"
    then in my opinion there is no meaning left to anyone's notes. Do we
    really want to participate in a "controlled" exchange of ideas? Is
    this what communication is? How do you ever get an "honest" opinion
    or idea?
    
    I don't want to walk on eggs and I don't think I can work in fear
    either. What about reputation? Anybody read Othello lately? Is
    a reputation at stake here? 
    
    I don't know what's in Mr. G's mind, no one does. I can't say what
    he is trying to accomplish. Maybe he'll clear it all up for us soon.
    And, though he got my attention, all the worry will be over.
    In the meantime, I can't help but wonder if, now that I've written
    this note, I should look over my shoulder.....and get nervous
    myself......
    
    Your mileage may vary.....(as I heard someone else in these notesfile
    say).......
    
    Janet
    

	Folks, the DEFCU BoD election does not close until April
	17th. May I respectfully suggest that folks re-focus their efforts
	on continuing to inform DEFCU shareholders about the credentials
	and positions of the various candidates, and on encouraging
	them to cast an informed vote.

					Tom_K

        Re: .41

>    In this war of words, I find it interesting that explicitly calling
>    folks "witchhunters" is okay and implicitly calling folks "slimeballs"
>    is not.

        Now that's an interesting point.

        Has anyone formally complained about the `witchhunters' memo?

        					B.J.

    According to Ron Glover when I talked to him yesterday, nobody has
    complained about the "witchhunters" memo.

    
    RE: .54
    
>  Has anyone formally complained about the `witchhunters' memo?
    
    No, and I hope NOBODY would formally complain.  Since I was the person
    named in the memo and probably branded more than others, I would hope
    my wishes would be honored.  I want EVERYBODY to be able to say and
    write their opinions, choosing the words THEY wish.  How else are we
    supposed to learn about THEM?  I would not want 1 word of the
    'witch-hunters memo' altered.  I think it conveyed to people what so much
    of this has been about and told quite a bit about the people on the
    Board.  I think everybody should print out a copy, post it in their
    office and re-read it occasionally, just to remind yourself of what
    needs to be changed at DCU.
    
    And besides, I've grown to like 'witch-hunter'.  I consider the source
    and then look at the filing cabinet full of 'witches' our hunts have
    turned up.  Where DCU has been concerned, 'witch-hunting' has revealed
    what has been going on behind the closed and locked doors.  Or on the
    sandy beaches, as the case may be...
    

I have purposely NOT complained about the 'witchhunters' note as I want it to
stay visible for everyone to see.  It's some of the best campaigning the BoD
could have ever done for us.  A lot of people weren't really interested in the
election and figured that Phil and others were somehow 'misinterpreting' the
facts and overreacting...until they read the 'witchhunters' note.  That note
gave an awful lot of credibility to Phil's and others statements.

Bob - proud to be a WITCHHUNTER

  o  re .51.  So far the moderators have done an excellent job, IMO.  Yes,
     it's a tough job sometimes.  But the reason it's tough (still IMO) is
     less because weighty issues are at stake, but because P&P are being
     re-interpreted case by case.

  o  re .49.  Remember that Ron Glover has yet to delineate what it is about
     .4 which violates P&P.  That's one reason why the defense of .4 seems
     not to come to rest:  the charge is unstated.

  o  In fact, in his complaint to Tom K's CC manager, Ron did not cleary say
     that P&P WAS violated;  rather, he indicated that he believed so.

     That means that the eventual defense or condemnation of .4 DOES matter,
     both to Tom K personally and to all of NOTES.

     (And it's messy for Tom K's manager, who presumably isn't enthusiastic
     about having a vague P&P charge dropped in his lap for a decision.)

  o  The vagueness might be consistent with the whole matter's having been
     initiated by someone's making a complaint to Ron.  If that's the case,
     though, it's odd that Ron's response would be to immediately ask for
     action from a senior manager.

     What would happen if Phil Gransewicz complained about "witchunter",
     or if _I_ complained about something Larry wrote?  Wouldn't the first
     step be to suggest that complainer and complainee get together and
     work things out?  Wouldn't Personnel be called in only if that failed?
     Wouldn't the management chain be the LAST resort?  

  o  It's odd, IMO, that whenever the little guy is on the receiving end of
     a complaint, the complainer seems to be anonymous.  There's something
     about all this that doesn't seem to be "the right thing".

    
      It is all good and well to speak of "doing the right thing". 
    
      However, it would seem in these sad times that it is only the
    "little guy" whom is actively in pursuit of "doing the right thing".
    And as is pointed out it is always the little guy on the recieving
    end of the sh*tty stick.  I too, have felt the hits for taking a stand.
    There is no more benevolent corporate philosophy - this company is
    absolutely fear driven.  
    
      We are now losing, and will ultimately lose the battle of "doing the 
    right thing".  I have admiration, confidence and respect for all of you
    little guys and gals out there making the stand.
    
                                                           Ron

    Re .-1
    
    A little off the subject but in my view if the 'big wigs' don't start
    doing the right thing soon the shareholders of DEC will start doing
    it for them. I bet the institutions aren't too enthused about DEC's
    latest $290M of red ink.
    
    Dave

    
      Indeed, you are not too far off the subject, Dave.  Because DCU
    has an elective process, we members/shareholders are doing the right
    thing to correct its ills.  I am certain of our ultimate success in
    this endeavour.
    
       I am just as certain that today is the day  DEC shareholders and
    Wall Street have had enough and are now pulling the plug.  
    
                                                           Ron

    
    Well, we all know where at least $20,000 of that loss came from.
    Of all the times to spend money like that.... :-(
    

    I have temporarily hidden note 501.4 due a complaint. The complainant
    has postulated that it violates DEC P&P. As moderator I will help get the
    issue resolved between the note's author and the complainer.
    
    Dave

    
    Here we go again...  Hasn't this decision already been rendered? 
    Besides, who cares about something that was written 1.5 months ago?
    

Well, if the Moderator has received a proper, written
complaint from somebody, then he must resolve the
situation.  

I hope that the complainant first tried with all
sincerity to have his/her problems resolved by 
discussions with Mr. Krupinski.  Considering how 
Tom's note didn't mention anybody by name, or even
make an implicit reference to anybody, I can't see
how anybody could possibly be offended by it.

So, are we now going to start hacking through notes
from the months gone by raising complaints about all
the little things that people find offensive?  

Grumble, grumble, grumble...

./chris

�    Besides, who cares about something that was written 1.5 months ago?

    Well, that's one thing about the written word.  It doesn't disappear
    with time.

>    Well, that's one thing about the written word.  It doesn't disappear
>    with time.

Nor does my appreciation for those who censor the written word.

    The previous decision to leave the note visible was based on the fact
    that the moderators had received no complaints from anybody who felt
    themselves personally offended; all the complaints were "3rd party".
    Under those circumstances, the moderators are obliged to carefully
    examine a note and determine if, in the moderators' opinion, it is
    inherently offensive or violates the PP&P.  We did that can concluded
    the note was not a problem.  Moderators are not obliged to entertain
    all complaints from people who are not directly affected.

    The current complaint comes from a person who feels personally
    offended, so the situation has changed.  The note has been temporarily
    hidden in accordance with standard noting procedures pending the
    complainant and the author resolving the issue between themselves.
    
    Tom Eggers, co-moderator

    
    
    It's amazing how fast one of our 'higher ups' can get a fairly quick
    response and action taken to an alleged P&P violation, while it takes 
    some of the RC candidates weeks to get a response and action taken on
    what is now determined to be a real P&P violation (the interoffice
    mailing of the 'QB' infosheets).. Or did I miss something and some 
    action was taken against the senders of that mailing???  Oh yeah,
    we don't know who sent them, right?  Maybe I'm wrong here, but it
    is probably easier for them to walk into right offices while the
    rest have to send mail and make phone calls...
    
    I must say I have to hand it to the RC candidates and some others in
    this notesfile for going up against the bureacracy that appears to
    be in place to squelch the masses rising up and rebelling... 
    
    
    John
    

I think additional churning in this topic is not helpful.  Not everybody
feels comfortable complaining directly to a person who entered a note
that they don't like.  Let's give the moderator, the complainer and the
note author a little space to let them discuss what is the right thing to do.

Mr. Moderator, under the circumstancs, it may be best to set this topic
nowrite for a day or two.  Not to censor anyone, but just to enforce a
brief pause while the people directly involved discuss the issue.

Note that I am not naming the person who complained.  While I think that
complaints should not be anonymous, I don't think we should be discussing 
the complaint or who made it while the issue is being worked on by the
three people involved.

	Yours sincerely,
	Larry Seiler

re:  Churning this topic

Give me a break!  There's absolutely *no* reason for someone
to feel uncomfortable contacting the author of the note to 
complain about it.  An email message complaining about the note
is sufficient to get a dialog started.  If you are offended by
something, then you should go to the source and complain.
Besides, contacting the author is part of the procedure. 

The procedures seem fairly straightforward to me:

	Contact the author and discuss (email or in-person)
	if( still not happy )
           Contact the moderator and discuss
	if( still not happy )
           Begin traversing up the food chain

I strongly oppose any concept of setting topics to nowrite on
a temporary basis simply to suppress conversation about a particular
issue.  This sounds a lot like censorship before the fact. 

It will be interesting to see how many other complaints get sent about
other notes in this conference.  It's curious to me that it's OK for
someone to write here that specific people are liars, witchhunters, and
on some evil mission to discredit the credit union, while it's not
OK for someone to speculate about completely hypothetical situations
where no specific person is mentioned or even implied.

./chris

    I have now set the topic NOWRITE and set more notes hidden than I think
    I have ever done total in all the conferences I moderate.

    I'm not quite sure what the right thing to do is at this point, but it
    is very clear to me that the right thing is *not* happening. So until
    the other moderators and I figure it out, I've forced the topic to go
    quiet.
    
    Tom Eggers, co-moderator

    As the moderator (and host) of this file I have now unhidden certain
    notes in the string from .70 onwards.
    
    I have deleted all notes that named the person that complained about
    501.4. I think it is not right to discuss the complaint here. Every
    employee has every right to complain about any note. Making disparaging
    comments because someone has complained comes close to harassment in
    my view and I won't sanction that and nor, quite rightly, does DEC's
    P&P.
    
    Now please can we get back to the subject of the base note. The issue
    of 501.4 will be resolved offline between the author of 501.4 and
    the person that complained about that note.
    
    Dave

    And I've made the topic writable once again.

    
    RE: .84 & .85
    
    Quite amazing gentlemen.  What else can't be discussed now because you
    fear a person will cause you headaches?  Several replies to
    this string have been deleted which do not in any way harass anybody. 
    The actions and possible compensation of a DCU Director are valid
    topics of discussion.  Why are they gone?  
    
    This 'shotgun blast' approach to moderating is baloney.  If a person 
    is uncomfortable about having their actions discussed, are we all now 
    "harassing" them?  If that is the case then almost all conferences will 
    have to be shut down or similairly shotgunned because this type of 
    discussion is done on a daily basis.  Quite specifically, are we all
    "harassing" Mr. Sims by discussing his letter to DCU members?  Or is
    harassment when somebody uses Personnel to go after somebody?
    
    You are setting a disturbing and dangerous precedent with your actions
    in this string of notes.

>    Quite amazing gentlemen.  What else can't be discussed now because you
>    fear a person will cause you headaches?  Several replies to
>    this string have been deleted which do not in any way harass anybody. 
>    The actions and possible compensation of a DCU Director are valid
>    topics of discussion.  Why are they gone?  

	There are rules in this company. Some written and some unwritten.
	In the almost 9 years I've been noting it has been a pretty general
	rule that complaints are handled offline and that the names of people
	who complain are kept private. What has been done here is nothing
	new. To suggest that this time the name is being kept out is fear
	is an unfair and unjustified charge. 

	As for the actions and possible compensation of a DCU Director, I
	do believe that is a valid topic of discussion. However, if those 
	same notes also involve identifying people involved in a complaint
	then that other thing is a reason for deleting a note.

>    You are setting a disturbing and dangerous precedent with your actions
>    in this string of notes.

	In short, there is nothing new here. This action only follows precedent
	that has been in effect for years and years. Relax, this sort of thing
	hasn't killed discussions in Notes yet and it's not likely to.

				Alfred

SET MODE/HUMOR=ON

I think this whole thing is some evil conspiracy to distract
the DCU noting community and make them forget to cast their
votes in the election!

:-)

SET MODE/HUMOR=OFF

We now return you to our regularly scheduled noting??????

./chris

	I respect the moderators of the conference. I am disappointed in
	this action, but they are the moderators.

	Alfred, my experience with respect to making disputes public 
	seems to be different than yours, but that's fine, there are a lot of
	different conferences, and we probably mostly note in different ones.

	I have said nothing I need to apologize for in 501.4. Someone else
	will decide its fate, but I have a clear conscience.

						Tom_K

    re .89
    
    Phil, one thing that has become more and more clear to me over the last
    few years as I have been noting, is that in Digital Notes conferences
    there is no such thing as free speech and hence there is no such thing
    as censorship.  The notes conferences are Digital's ... the notes in
    them written by you and I are Digital's ... as has been shown in legal
    circles ... therefore anything you or I say here is tantamount to
    Digital having said it.  Therefore, Digital have every right to
    determine what we can and cannot say in a conference.  
    
    Digital has seen fit to allow employee-interest noting and have been 
    relatively flexible in what is allowed and what is not; usually leaving 
    such decisions to the discretion of the moderators.  However, there are
    occasions when Digital management have stepped in and affected the
    continued operation of a notes conference.
    
    It is unfortunate that any electronic communication within Digital (and
    this includes mail and telephone too) is considered Digital's
    communication and cannot be tools for free speech.  In our litigous
    society, people seem to want to extract a pound of flesh and more from
    anyone even remotely involved with an incident.  So, Digital has to
    protect itself ... It could do it in one of two ways ... impose
    restrictions on what can and cannot be written ... or to forbid
    employee interest noting.  They have chosen the former to our
    advantage but we have to live within these restrictions as interpreted
    by conference moderators.
    
    The fact that this conference is seemingly under close scrutiny by
    senior Digital management, a more strict moderatorial style is possibly
    for the better to ensure the continued existence of this conference.
    There are a lot more notes in this conference that other moderators in
    other conferences would have removed a long time ago.
    
    So, I believe they are doing a fair minded job given the constraints
    they must work under ...
    
    Stuart

>    I have never seen this type of shot-gunning of notes in a conference
>    before.  There is a pretty intense 'discussion' in the DIGITAL
>    conference that has gotten down to name-calling and some pretty nasty
>    adjectives yet I haven't seen the moderators there start deleting or
>    hiding notes.
	
	Must not get around much. :-) I've seen this sort of shot-gunning 
	before. I've even done it myself. I've even done in in the DIGITAL
	conference, which I used to moderate. And oh by the way, in conferences
	with really on the ball moderators notes can disappear before more
	then a few people see it. So it is likely that you read conferences
	that have deleted notes you never see or know about. It's only when
	notes get complained about late that this sort of shot-gunning has
	to happen.

			Alfred

    I just think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that someone's
    manager and personnel rep have been contacted because of a perceived
    offense in a notefile. Personally, I don't think a perceived offense
    is important enough to do that. So, it's natural, I guess, to try to
    look between the lines, so to speak. Asking: "What does this REALLY mean?"
    
    As a person who rarely enters notes and has for the most part been
    a "read only" noter, it is vastly important to me to try to understand
    this. I could just back off and say "OK, no more noting for me", but
    I'd prefer to not do that. I would rather discuss, communicate,
    investigate, whatever, until I understand. I am not ready to just
    assume that noting is "dangerous" to my career.
    
    That's my mileage for now, and it's just an opinion.
    
    Janet
    

    
    RE: .92
    
    Don't get me wrong.  I'm not suggesting a free-for-all where everybody
    can call each other every name in the book.  And I am also not talking
    about replies that slander somebody.
    
    What I am objecting to is the 'off-limits' signs being placed on
    discussions involving certain people or certain topics. 
    

    re .96
    
    OK, posture this ...
    
    You complain about something I've written about you ...  I then go and
    advertise a) that there's been a complaint b) that you personally
    complained c) and then proceed to discuss the complaint in open public.
    Wouldn't you be a little peeved (never mind what the complaint was, or
    what it was about).  I would likely be more than a little annoyed.
    
    And I still stand up for the moderators decisions ... there are
    subjects that due to their emotional backlash or other sensitive nature
    that do deserve off-limits signs ... not because they are offensive
    or violations of P&P themselves, but could easily provoke a reply that
    would.  It's kind of like taunting someone until they punch you.  Yes,
    you're wrong to pung, but the taunter shouldn't be taunting either.
    
    Stuart

    I have deleted and returned to their authors two more notes posted
    this morning which indirectly named the complainant.
    
    Tom Eggers, co-moderator

    Moderator Tom,
    
    Trying to understand the process, I have a question for you.
    
    Once this issue is resolved in confidentiality, will the moderator
    post the results in this note? Are the readers of the notesfile
    included in the "fairness" concern? After all, we are all "involved"
    so to speak, at this point, so I'm wondering if we'll hear the
    end of it?
    
    Janet
    
    

    I'm willing to explain what I have done, and why, either privately or
    by posting a note, once this is over.  But events seem to be running
    faster than I can deal with them.  I live in Colorado Springs, so you
    East coast folks get a two-hour head start on me.  I'm still at home
    and haven't eaten breakfast yet.

    No rush!
    
    Just inquiring.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Janet
    

re: .97

Being the sort who never is shy about expressing an opinion,
if I found a note offensive, I would reply to the note in the
conference and let the author, and everyone else, know why I
was unhappy/offended/peeved/whatever about the note.

On the other hand, if I were a shy type who was horribly 
offended and taken-aback by a note, I would send email to the
author, state my case, indicate what I felt would be a fair
way to settle the issue, and close with something pithy like "Of
course, I expect that you will hold this complaint, and my specific
objections, in confidence."  I would then expect the author to
work with me to resolve the situation to our mutual satisfaction, or
to at least remain quiet while I worked the food chain.

If I write a note that John Doe finds offensive, and John Doe calls
me up and says "look, this offends, take it out or else," and I've
already been through the issue once with mods and corporate types,
I'm likely to tell John "no way" and if the mods hide the note, I'm
likely to write "This note was hidden because John Doe is mad about it.
I see no reason to hide it and stand by my remarks."  When a note has
been sitting around for all to see for a month, and suddenly it becomes
a huge controversy, the author may feel as "attacked" as the individual
complaining, and may desire to note about what has happened.

Seems to me that it's incumbent upon the "injured party" to request
anonymity/"protection from other noters" as that person feels warranted.
Sort of like in court where one of the parties requests a gag order
to prohibit outside disclosure of certain facts/allegations in evidence.
So, from this position, I get that the entire thread that was deleted
yesterday was an appropriate direction for discussion.  Obviously the
moderators don't see it that way.

I don't like blanket deletion of big pieces of a thread - on the other
hand I can understand the reaction in the current political climate. 
I *really* don't like "I set this topic to nowrite to keep you guys from
discussing it."  That seems to be taking things too far.

Lastly, I understand the comments about how these are Digital's machines,
and that we use them in employee interest notes files on a "priviliged"
basis.  On the other hand, what I say/write in a notes conference should
not be construed as Digital's opinion, and Digital is wrong to proceed from
that basis.  The same principle holds in the op-ed pages of a newspaper.
If I write a scathing letter to the editor, the paper may choose to print
it along with a disclaimer saying "opinions herein are not those of the
paper's owners, management, or editorial staff."  

Just my $0.06... (too long to be just $0.02 :-))

./chris

>Lastly, I understand the comments about how these are Digital's machines,
>and that we use them in employee interest notes files on a "priviliged"
>basis.  On the other hand, what I say/write in a notes conference should
>not be construed as Digital's opinion, and Digital is wrong to proceed from
>that basis.  The same principle holds in the op-ed pages of a newspaper.
>If I write a scathing letter to the editor, the paper may choose to print
>it along with a disclaimer saying "opinions herein are not those of the
>paper's owners, management, or editorial staff."  
    
    A newspaper has the choice not to print ... exactly!  Digital only has
    an after the fact equivalent of "not to print" ... by setting hidden or
    removing notes by or via the moderator AFTER an indeterminate number
    of people may have alreaddy seen the work.
    
    That Digital should not be considered the owner of the works in Notes
    should be a reasonable request, but there is enough legal precedent to
    declare that Digital IS the legal owner, whether we declare them to be
    our own opinions or not.  That is the existing environment ... not one
    we are afraid of creating.
    
    On the thread of complainant anonymity ... many people do believe that
    any communication from them should be treated as private unless overtly
    declared otherwise, and this forms a part of our electronic
    communications culture.  Courts are an inversion of that ... but on the
    other hand when you take a complaint to court you KNOW that it will be
    public knowledge so take actions to prevent it.
    
    Stuart

�Lastly, I understand the comments about how these are Digital's machines,
�and that we use them in employee interest notes files on a "priviliged"
�basis.  On the other hand, what I say/write in a notes conference should
�not be construed as Digital's opinion, and Digital is wrong to proceed from
�that basis.  
    
    Some precedents have already been set in this area.  Prodigy (I think,
    it was one of the publically available notes style thingies) has had to
    address similar issues.  They have taken the stand that if it's on
    their, the feel responsible for it (and might actually have
    responsibility as decided in a court case or two).  
    
    Even if DEC is legally not responsible for what an employee writes on
    what is essentially equivalent to company letterhead, the costs to
    prove they are not responsible could dwarf the alleged $20K spent to
    put out the Sims memo.

�    On the thread of complainant anonymity ... many people do believe that
�    any communication from them should be treated as private unless overtly
�    declared otherwise, 
    
    And if you go look at P&P, permission to foward memos, etc. is
    expressly forbidden without the author's permission.  Stating what was
    said in a memo is not against the letter of the policy, but certainly
    could be against the spirit of it.

    So, who's running this corporation? Management, or the lawyers?
    
    Everything seems to hinge these days of whether someone can sue
    about it or not. If we tie up the world in an absolutely non-sueable
    box, it won't be able to move anymore.
    
    For a change, let's think of the human aspect here and not the
    legal one. All we do is make the lawyers fatter and the people
    nervous. Shakespeare had a good thought about lawyers!
    
    JMHO,
    
    Janet
    

.105> And if you go look at P&P, permission to foward memos, etc. is
.105> expressly forbidden without the author's permission.
    
    Not quite... the relevant portion of PP&P Sec. 6.54 is reproduced
    below. Forwarding a message is OK, providing it includes the original
    header; it is posting a previously non-public message in a conference
    that requires specific permission.
    
    ------------

    "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."

    RE: .102

>On the other hand, what I say/write in a notes conference should
>not be construed as Digital's opinion, and Digital is wrong to proceed from
>that basis.

    I agree with you that what you say should not be construed as Digital's
    opinion. However, it may very well be that it will be so construed that
    way. Especially if Digital doesn't "do anything" about it. Also it
    can be used as evidence in legal matters as contributing to or being
    and example of what Digital does or believes. Should it be that way?
    Probably not. Has that sort of thing happened in legal matters? Yes.
    Digital would be wrong *not* to proceed from that basis.


    >  The same principle holds in the op-ed pages of a newspaper.
>If I write a scathing letter to the editor, the paper may choose to print
>it along with a disclaimer saying "opinions herein are not those of the
>paper's owners, management, or editorial staff."  

    No it's not the same principle. Notes is not a newspaper. It's a
    means of internal communication like a memo. Very different.

    RE: .106

    > So, who's running this corporation? Management, or the lawyers?

    Someone is running this corporation???? :-)

    Seriously though, lawyers have a much bigger say these days because
    of the litigious nature on American society today. Sad but true.

    
    			Alfred

    
    RE: .97
    
>    And I still stand up for the moderators decisions ... there are
>    subjects that due to their emotional backlash or other sensitive nature
>    that do deserve off-limits signs ... not because they are offensive
>    or violations of P&P themselves, but could easily provoke a reply that
    >                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    would.  It's kind of like taunting someone until they punch you.  Yes,
>    you're wrong to pung, but the taunter shouldn't be taunting either.
    
    Surely you jest!  Now you think people should write things or be
    allowed to write things that will provoke a reply that will violate
    P&P?  Just how are people supposed to know this?  Do we start passing
    all replies by a conference fortune-teller before posting?
    
    Now stop provoking me to reply... ;-)
    

    Now come on, you know full well, in a hot notes string whether
    something you write is going to continue the exchange.  You don't
    need a crystal ball ... just common (or is that uncommon) sense.  :-)
    Now, in this matter, I'm not saying that they force the permanent
    stop of discussion on topic xyz (although I can name two topics off
    the top of my head that are almost permanently stopped for this
    very reason in a couple of conferences) but that they stop discussion 
    for a period until cooler heads prevail.
    
    Stuart

We (that's the Papal "we", as in "DEC and its employees") seem to be 
proceeding from a basis that whatever we write in notes can be treated
in the same fashion as something we say in public.  There is an
juxtaposition of beliefs here:

	1.  No "freedom of speech" per se, because DEC owns
            the toys, and the result of what we type into them.

	2.  We worry about being sued over things written here.

Well, which is it?  Communication inside of Digital is, by definition,
Company Confidential, and may not under any means be disclosed to the
public.  Digital sets up an elaborate, and useful when uniformly applied,
code of conduct which regulates what can be said, and imposes it's own
penalties for failure to comply.  This begs the question about how something
can lead to a lawsuit.  

If somebody writes "Chris Gillett is a moronic pain in the butt" in a notes
conference, I will most assuredly be offended.  I will probably reply to the
note, and might consider following the process designed to object to a note.
I most certainly wouldn't consider suing my employer over the remark.  And I'd
be hard-pressed to consider suing the author of the note.  On the other hand,
if someone did same in the Real World, I would most certainly avail myself of
the legal system to alleviate the problem.

So, I claim that you need to accept one of two views about our communications:

	1.  It is a completely open, public system, and all authors have
            complete freedom of speech as is commonly understood.  Write
            at your own risk.  Digital provides the means to speak, but
            not the words or thoughts.

	2.  It is a completely closed, private system, and no author has
            complete freedom of speech as is commonly understood.  Failure
            to comply with the local culture's rules and regulations will
            result in corrective action.

Everything I see coming out of Digital, and a lot of what I'm seeing in
previous notes, is predicated on neither of these bases.

Someone wrote something to the effect that I shouldn't write something that
could possibly provoke a response that would violate the P&P.  I disagree.
This is tantamount to saying that since I decided to buy a sports car, that
provoked someone into stealing it, and so the problem is not the thief's
own dishonesty, but rather my audacity in buying such a car.  Are you going
to send me to jail?

For what it's worth, this thread seems to me to be a fairly worthwhile 
thread for any notes conference.  Good thing this topic was write-enabled
after all, eh?

./chris

    
    RE: .111
    
    Yes, but who decides what 'hot' is and when 'hot' is too 'hot'?  Topics
    usually don't start out 'hot', they grow 'hot'.  So you want nothing
    that may get 'hot' to be discussed?
    
    Oh well, I'll just buy more No-Doze I guess.  And hope all the
    thin-skinned people of the world don't learn how to use notes.  
    

    If the thick-headed ones would forget, that would also solve the
    problem.	:-(

    
    Toss in the removal of overbearing moderators and you have a total
    solution...
    

    Agreed!	Hey!  We agree on something!

    
    Now if you would just point out the remaining segment of my note that
    wish me to censor to suit your ever-so-sensitive eyes, I wouldn't need
    to keep re-posting it and guessing.
    
    So just what can't we discuss in here today Tom?  Who's name can't we
    mention this hour?  My Provok-a-Reply crystal ball just doesn't seem to
    be working.  

    OK OK OK :-)
    
    Boy it's hard enough to write what you are thinking, let alone what you
    really mean!  Let me have another stab at this ... consider the
    "sort-of" example I offered.  If I taunt you enough, (whether by notes
    or however) you'll take a swing at me (fist or verbal!) Now is it not
    reasonable for a moderator to step in and say "Hold on minute here guys
    ... simmer down".  That's how I view "write locking" a topic.
    
    The taunter shouldn't be taunting and soemone steps in to stop the
    taunting before the tauntee lashes back, there's not a lot wrong with
    that either!
    
    Now, said he looking in his crystal ball "Who have I offended now ?"
    :-) :-)
    
    Stuart

    Re: .117

    For the time being, you can't post any note that directly, indirectly,
    or by close association reveals the name of the complainant.  I've sent
    you VAXmail with some more specifics.  I'd just as soon not have to
    delete your note for the 4th time.
    
    twe

   Re: .112
   
>Well, which is it?  Communication inside of Digital is, by definition,
>Company Confidential, and may not under any means be disclosed to the
>public.  Digital sets up an elaborate, and useful when uniformly applied,
>code of conduct which regulates what can be said, and imposes it's own
>penalties for failure to comply.  This begs the question about how something
>can lead to a lawsuit.  
   
   
   Someone said it before.  Notes is a medium used for Digital corporate
   communications.  Yes, it is company confidential.  No, it can be made
   public.
   
   Case history:  Many of us may remember when a corporate edict came
   down that references in ALL correspondence to ALL-IN-1 must be
   spelled out ALL-IN-1.  In particular, we were not us refer to it as
   "A1".  The reason for this is that someone was going to file suit
   against Digital because they wanted to use ALL-IN-1 as well, but
   Digital had it trademarked.  
   
   It turns out that if you routinely refer to a trademarked product by
   other than the trademark name in company correspondence then the
   company gives up its right to the trademark name.  This included
   hardcopy memos, letters, electronic correspondence, liturature and
   VAXNOTES.
   
   If it goes to court, it is public.  DCU is a separate legal entity
   from Digital Equipment Corporation.  They could supeana this whole
   conference in a legal action if they chose to take that route.  An
   individual suing Digital for slander could do likewise.
   
   So, Digital is on the hook legally for anything that is written on a
   company communication resource.

>Well, which is it?  Communication inside of Digital is, by definition,
>Company Confidential, and may not under any means be disclosed to the
>public. 

	Heck of a theory. In practice internal documents are routinely
	disclosed as required by court order. Happens all the time. And
	even though internal communication is supposed to be kept internal
	history shows that a whole lot of it leaks out. And "bad things"
	said about third parties routinely get leaked. Sad but true.

			Alfred

�    Surely you jest!  Now you think people should write things or be
�    allowed to write things that will provoke a reply that will violate
�    P&P?  
    
    Cautions by moderators to avoid the use of "fighting words" have been
    around for as long as I can remember.

�Well, which is it?  Communication inside of Digital is, by definition,
�Company Confidential, and may not under any means be disclosed to the
�public.  
    
    That may be true in theory, but in reality it happens.  Remember the
    policy that came about not too long ago where people were requested to
    not put in disparaging remarks about other companies.  The thing that
    separates Notes from the Op-Ed page is that not everyone can respond
    via notes (particularly those outside the company).  Anyone is free to
    write a rebuttal to the local paper.
    
�For what it's worth, this thread seems to me to be a fairly worthwhile 
�thread for any notes conference.  Good thing this topic was write-enabled
�after all, eh?
    
    Well, this thread is completely off the subject and really shouldn't be
    in this topic at all.  That's not to say it shouldn't be discussed in
    the conference (it's been discussed many times in many others).

�    Toss in the removal of overbearing moderators and you have a total
�    solution...
    
    You sure would.  You'd have the disappearance of employee interest
    noting.  The position of moderator is a voluntary one, completely
    outside of the scope of the job description (at least for EI
    conferences).  Moderators have been assigned the responsibility of
    keeping the peace and organization of the conferences they have
    volunteered to moderate.  Not only do they end up getting in the middle
    of disputes between employees, but their butts can be dragged down to
    personnel if the situation escalates.

re: last few

The fact that Digital mandates that it is responsible for 
the communications in notes files places them on the hook
for what gets said.  If Digital specifically disclaimed 
responsibility, then that would tend to lessen any perceived
threat of being sued over remarks made by employees.  I've seen
similar forums in other companies where everything that is 
written is specifically disclaimed to be the opinions and
writings of the author, and is specifically stated to be NOT
the opinion of the Corporation.

Let's see....someone calls me up on the phone and calls me
a lying SOB.  Digital owns the phone, NET owns the telephone
exchanges, AT&T the phone lines, US Sprint the long distance
billing services, and ComSat owns the satellite.  Should I
sue them all?

Somebody sends me a letter and calls me bad names.  Should I
sue the typewriter company, the paper mill, the pulpers, the
US Postal Service, and the invidual letter carriers?

If we work at this hard enough, we can make anybody responsible
for anything.

./chris

>Somebody sends me a letter and calls me bad names.  Should I
>sue the typewriter company, the paper mill, the pulpers, the
>US Postal Service, and the invidual letter carriers?

   This is correct!!!  America's judicial system no longer throws out
   frivalous cases.  It is suppose to.  But they don't.  That is one of
   the biggest complaints about litigation in the U.S.  
   
   You can sue anyone for just about anything and come out ahead simply
   because is it cheaper to settle out of court than go through the
   expense of a trial.  (In the U.S.,  if the defendant wins a suit
   against him his legal costs do not have to be reinbursed by the
   plaintiff.  Our fellow Deccies in Europe see this as one of the most
   barbaric practices we have.)
   
   That's why Cessna has stopped making private aircraft in America.  It
   costs to much when one crashes (someone successfully won a case
   against Cessna because the pilot was drunk and hit some power lines. 
   They also were able to sue the manufacturer of some of the engine
   parts even though the NTSB clearly stated the engine did not fail.)
   
   Today people simply go on fishing expiditions to see who isn't
   willing to go though a court battle to save costs.  You would be
   surprised how many suits sue companies that had done nothing more
   than "supplied the typewriter".
   
   U.S. companies have every right to be paranoid about these things
   because they almost always go to jury trials.  Look at the caliber of
   juries today and you'll see why they sock it to the BIG RICH
   COMPANIES.

    Too right, on that AIR INDIA crash a few years ago off Ireland from
    Toronto, a Dr in New York with his mother on that flight sued Boeing
    for "not constructing a bomb proof aircraft".  Talk about ludicrous.
    
    Stuart

And then there is the woman who sued the Microwave company when she tried to
dry her dog in it.

    That one is often attributed to urban legends!

Look, we all have to abide by the Orange Book. I don't have P&P Police 
watching over me all the time to make sure I don't violate any of the rules. 
Therefore, I submit that there is no need for moderators. Each of us is 
responsible for our own actions. For moderators to get in the middle of any of 
this is ridiculous. What price do we have to pay to have open communications in 
this company?

Jim

�    Surely you jest!  Now you think people should write things or be
�    allowed to write things that will provoke a reply that will violate
�    P&P?  
>>    
>>    Cautions by moderators to avoid the use of "fighting words" have been
>>    around for as long as I can remember.

    	What does this last statement have to do with this situation? 
    There are/were no 'fighting words' that I had seen.  And just what are
    'fighting words'?  Is this another phrase that 100 people will define
    100 ways?  Just like 'hot' issues or 'hot' topics?  The first
    statement had to do with the suggestion by someone that people
    shouldn't even write a reply that 'provokes' a reply, whatever that is.
    To me is sounds like a way of shifting the responsibility of what
    somebody writes to somebody who has no control over the other person,
    ie. "He MADE me do it!".  
    
    The situation here involved a moderator setting a whole series of
    replies hidden when he admittedly didn't know what he should do. 
    Included in those replies where discussions of legitimate issues.  The
    issue to me is "indiscriminate moderator shot-gunning".  If there are
    specific issues with specific notes, then by all means, hide them and
    notify the writter stating what the problem is or pointing out the
    specific part of a long note that they consider an issue.  Is this too
    much to ask?
    

    Phil, give it a rest!  I beleive the moderators have done a great job.
    Lets not loose focus on what we are trying to do.  Fighting too many
    fires at once can also make enemies/disbelievers of a wide varity
    people who once believed in your[our] cause.
    ed
    

    Besides P&P *requires* that  there be a moderator for any conference
    and defines some of their responsibilities.

    A moderator is nothing but that - a moderator. He is not omnipotent.
    We happen to have excellent moderators. I am grateful to them for
    the job them do.
    
    There is no reason, however, why I cannot disagree with them. I do
    disagree with them on this particular issue, and feel no necessity
    to hide that fact.
    
    Janet
    

    Ed,
    	re the following;
    >   <<< Note 501.133 by SASE::FAVORS::BADGER "One Happy camper ;-)" >>>
    >                 -< 1 finger pointed out,4 point back >-
    >
    >Phil, give it a rest!  I beleive the moderators have done a great job.
    >Lets not loose focus on what we are trying to do.  Fighting too many
    >fires at once can also make enemies/disbelievers of a wide varity
    >people who once believed in your[our] cause.
    >ed
    
    	Thats right Phil, you better walk on eggs now that your in the spot
    light.  Don't say anything that offends us, or that anyone disagrees
    with, or we won't like you anymore...   :-)
    
    	Hey Ed!  Give the Guy a break.  He is entitled to his opinion, just
    as you are.  What you said sounded more like a threat, than a warning. 
    At least tone it down.  I really doubt that because Phil wants freedom
    of speech, that "a wide varity people" will turn.
    
    Jim Morton
    

    
    Thanks Jim , I needed that.  While I do not guarantee that I will
    always agree with everybody (sounds too much like a real politician), I
    do guarantee I will give you my honest opinion.  Take it, leave it, 
    take some of it, do whatever you wish.  My apologies if they are
    sometimes blunter than readers may be accustomed to.  Wishy-washy I ain't.
    I also guarantee that I read all other opinions and believe everybody 
    is entitled to express those opinions.  
    
    One thing I would like to say to Ed is *I* am not the cause.  This is
    not *my* cause.  This should be *every DCU members* cause because it is
    *their* credit union.  DCU will only be as good as *everybody* cares to
    make it.  I'll do my share.  But I also hope others do theirs too.
    
    

    Hello. This is your friendly DCU moderator and host here.
    
    I have unhidden note 501.4 that I temporarily hid a few weeks ago.
    The result of various offline discussions I've had with parties
    that had an interest in the note have convinced me that the note does
    not contain any statement that violates DEC P&P.
    
    I fully agree that some people may find the hypothetical situation
    discussed not to be in agreement with their own views. But that in
    itself does not mean the note can not be posted.
    
    The note reflects the personal views of the author and is neither
    endorsed nor objected to by me the DCU notesfile moderator.
    
    Dave, whose aim here is to provide a forum for open and honest
          discussions about the DCU. Everybody should be aware that they
    	  bear responsibility for any note they post here.