Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I see no problem with "registering" in a notesfile. It another way os
    intoducting yourself to fellow noters. I'm a reader mostly but do chip
    in a little here and there... 
    
    Yes, there has been some "tough issues" and topics that has heated up
    and some real information expressed.
    
                             REK
    
    Bottom line do what you (mods) feel is the best way to keep this
    notersfile open!!

    
    	I support this idea 110%.
    
    						nancy b.
    

    Since I am not female, I normally don't feel that it is my place to
    try to influence the policy of this conference.  However, it appears
    I may have, at least in part, been a factor behind this proposal now
    under consideration, so I will boldly go forth and comment upon it.

    There may be advantages to restricting this conference to members, as
    Maggie has mentioned.  I wonder, though, if there would be drawbacks,
    as well.  I have my doubts that, should you impose a membership
    restriction, all 10,000 readers would join.  I wonder if, once you
    impose a procedure for allowing people to participate, even though it
    is a mere formality and is automatic for all, it could deter some
    people from bothering to go to that extra effort.  The most active
    writers will join, of course, but what about the occasional read-only
    noters?  Maybe even some writers might decide not to join; in
    particular, I would definitely not join this conference if it were
    restricted to members.  As a male, it will be no loss to this
    conference (and some might consider my absence a distinct improvement),
    but what if you also deter some women from casually perusing this
    conference?  

    Perhaps this won't be a problem at all.  Maybe the existence of a
    membership list would encourage women to join rather than discourage
    them from active participation.  Maybe a desired side effect is that it
    would discourage men, but encourage women.  I do know that, from my own
    experience, membership lists almost always deter me from joining a
    conference that I might only be casually interested in, or that I might
    want to read for a while before I know if I want to participate--but I
    could be the exception.  In many notes conferences I often come and go. 
    Some conferences which are not in my notebook I may check out for some
    particular reason, and then never peek in again.  The hassle of having
    to join before I could even do that would mean that I simply wouldn't
    bother at all.  Am I indeed the exception?

    I can't imagine the moderators having the time to maintain a list of
    10,000 members, so I am guessing that, in considering this proposal,
    they don't expect all the readership to join.  If all did join, could
    it end up taxing both human and computer resources?  Has there ever
    been a notes conference with anywhere near that number of members?
    (that's not a rhetorical question--I'm asking because I don't know.)

    Having had my say, I'll now shut up.  Perhaps my objections are
    unfounded, but since I may have stirred things up in the first place I
    felt the urge to put in my two cents worth.

    -- Mike

    How would a registration list help to determine accountability, 
    except in a broad sense?
    
    Virginia
    

re: .4 (Virginia)

We have, in the past, had a few problems with anonymous noters depositing one
(or a few) notes meant simply to stir the pot, and disappearing. This can be
done by anyone with access to a generic account on a machine (SYSTEM is only
one of the many generic accounts available around the net), or with anyone with
the privilege to create new accounts (harder to detect; you can chose a name
that looks reasonable). When it has happened, we've contacted system owners,
and advised them of the security breach on their system (it's against the draft
MEM security guidelines, which are slowly working their way through a
company-wide review process).

If the notesfile became member-only, they'd have to register first with a
co-mod, and we could catch requests from generic accounts early.

Although, in thinking about it explictly to answer your question, I realize in
the past a few members have had to use alternative or generic accounts
temporarily (the SF earthquake leaps to mind). That could be a con-point.
	Mez

    One the one hand, I think Mike (.3) is right that it would tend to
    discourage some participants, particularly men.  And somewhat beyond
    the "extra effort" problem that he mentions.  I have seen
    membership-only conferences with what might be thought sensitive topics
    - gay and lesbian issues perhaps - and felt that I would probably be
    unwelcome.  I don't mean I _concluded_ that, just that I
    semi-consciously _assumed_ it. So I never asked even for "trial
    membership" to see if it might be valuable, or whether or not I would
    be welcome.  If =wn= were closed, I think a conscious effort would need
    to be made to counteract similar assumptions along these lines.
    
    On the other hand, I think the problem of sensitive topics, and
    awareness of who may be reading, is real.  Almost nobody who writes
    here interacts with me in my job. So it often seems like an anonymous
    environment where one can safely be candid.  But it fairly often
    happens that someone I work with will say "oh, I read what you said
    about .... , though I'm read only myself."  I can't imagine actually
    reading a membership list as long as is suggested, but I can understand
    wanting to _be able_ to do so, if I ever felt the need.  The mechanism
    might also keep people mindful of the issue of "public confession",
    which is probably good; in some cases it might decrease reliance on
    anonymous entries, not that I'm against them.
    
    On balance, I'm probably in favor, but not so thoroughly that I would
    follow through if I had to implement the change myself!
    
    			- Bruce

It might be mentioned that some employees, such as computer operators,
security folk, and tech's, only have access to notes via "generic"
accounts.  If one of them behaves inappropriately, I'm sure that
security/personnel has the resources to track down the individual.

I would  hope this remains a community of people who choose whether
to be "visible" or "invisible."

Martin.

    G'Day,
    
    	Whilst I can see the reasons for having this file members only, I
    think that we would see the departure of many transient noters and also
    a drastic reduction in the number of new noters.  The latter is what I
    see as being the most important.  I like to have a bit of a look around
    a conference before writing anything (like most I would think).  As a
    closed file does not allow people to have a look without asking for
    membership then I think most would just let it go by.  Some may think
    that a 'Womannotes' file is just a bunch of radical feminists whinging
    about how they hate men and would not bother to ask for membership. 
    Those same people may be tempted to have a look if all they had to do
    was add it to their notebook and see for themselves that the above
    description of this file is of course incorrect.  If it turns out that
    the file does come to be restricted then I would be interested to see
    just how many new people actually register over a period of time as
    opposed to current people from the file who register.  I think the
    number would be very small.
    
    	David
    
    

    I think making this a members conference would only give a false sense
    of security to writers.  The old saw remains, "If you wouldn't want to
    see it attached to your resume, don't write it in notes (restricted or
    otherwise)."
    
    Marge

Well that's interesting; is there really such a notes feature Marge?

But, of course, you can always copy it down (and I haven't a clue what
DECwindows can do, but I'd be surprised if there was no cut and past option).
	Mez

    There is a difference recognised in P&P, though not codified in the
    current version, that anything posted to an open (no membership list)
    conference may be copied at will, while material in a closed file may
    not be.  That doesn't actually protect an author from misuse of what
    she writes, but it does raise the stakes for the perpetrator.
    
    But you're right, Marge, in _any_ file ...open or closed... anything
    that isn't suitable to be "on your resume" should be posted
    anonymously.  It'd be cold comfort to know the perpetrator got
    disciplined or fired if your own professional life had been brought to
    ruins meanwhile.
    
    						=maggie

  I think making the file members-only wouldn't accomplish the intended
  goal, and would cause several negative effects (already noted).

  Why members-only wouldn't accomplish much:

    o If the membership list is a major percentage of the Employee
      Master File, then the membership list doesn't really contain
      much added value beyond that already contained in the EMF.

    o There's still no guarantee that notes will only be read by
      members -- Doesn't anyone ever read notes over *YOUR* shoulder?
      Do you ever print notes and share them?


  Sidelight:

    o As someone already pointed out, there's no such thing as an
      enforceable "NOEXTRACT".  There are nine-zillion techniques
      to extract notes.  For example: SET HOST/LOG; PC screen cap-
      ture; <PRINT_SCREEN> and FAX the printout; <PRINT_SCREEN> and
      scan it into an OCR.

                                   Atlant

	THIS IS A NOTE FROM:  DEB MORRISON (aka Atlant's SO)

  As a contract worker (working for myself @ Digital in APO), this would
  be a problem for me.  As an outsider, I don't feel comfortable
  writing in Digital notes files, however, I do occassionally read them,
  especially from home when someone else just happens to be logged in.
  I have my own account but have never been quite sure that it's *legal*
  for a non-DECie to read/write in notes.  I know a few DECie's that
  would very opposed to it but have not seen an official policy one way
  or the other.

  Clearly, WOMANNOTES has a lot to offer.  Something you may have missed,
  is that Digital uses quite a few "Contract Types" (mostly female) and
  this would leave a lot of us out.

  Oh, by the way, I certainly have run across people that will say, gee
  I saw a note Atlant wrote the other day in WOMANNOTES....even though
  we have different last names.  So notes do get around!

  Deb
 

    Mez, I made that up.  

    <--(.14)
    
    Deb, just as a point of interest, many contractors do contribute
    regularly to notefiles both technical and non; so far as I can tell
    there is no problem with that, though an hourly-rate contractor would
    of course be required ethically not to bill for time spent in non-
    contract-related activity.
    
    						=maggie

    re .0 My gut reaction is against the idea. Maybe a 
    fear of 'big brotherism' in any form. 
    
    Are the moderators prepared to guard the list extremely
    closely ? Or will they release it on anyone's request ?
    If they will release it, will it be classified as not
    for publication, transmission, sharing ? 
    
    Sorry, but this makes me doggone uncomfortable. I understand
    how a few people miight have a strong need to know who all
    is reading their stuff, but does their need justify all this ?
    Or, can their need be met a different way, without making
    them uncomfortable about noting here ?

    

    The list isn't actually guardable, Dana:  any member of the community
    do a "sho mem x" to check whether a certain other person "x" is a
    member, or a "sho mem" to see a list of all current members.  Unlike
    the "dir" command, the membership list cannot be written to disk, but
    it can still be captured via screen-dump or cut/paste.
    
    						=maggie

    re .18 >the list isn't guardable
    
    Then I'm damn sure I don't like it. Sorry.
    
    Dana

    Disclaimer - I haven't read any replies yet.
    
    Please don't make this a membership file.  I would never have gotten
    started here if I had needed to contact someone first.  I was read-only
    for over a year before I wrote my first note, checking out the
    atmosphere and whether I wanted to participate.
    
    I really don't see any advantage to making this file membership
    based.
    
    Alison

    I'm not sure I was clear enough:  members can see the names of other
    members; non-members can see nothing at all.  So it is "guarded" to
    that extent, at least.
    
    						=maggie

 I don't see any advantage worth the inertia. Keep it the way it is.

 The Doctah

    Re:  .3   (Mike)   Don't sell yourself short.  *Everyone's* input
    here is valuable, be they men, women, or polka-dotten Venusians.
    
    I second/third/tenth the notion to NOT make this member's only.
    I'd never have come in here in the first place if it was--I don't
    understand/see the value of making womannote's member's only.
    
    Sounds terribly elitist, and vaguely like this file is soooooooooo
    unconventional/controversial/social unacceptable to the mainstream
    that it has to be restricted to keep out people who disagree.
    
    As for those hit and run noters, what's wrong with setting a note
    hidden?  I havent' seen THAT many notes put in just to stir things
    up, and I've been here for some time.  
    
    Besides, you'd be scaring off a lot of future noters who might have
    otherwise contributed something extraordinarily valuable here.
    
    
    ---kim

    I am against the membership idea. I think the net result would be
    alienating the casual readers. Casual readers become regulars who
    become contributors.Through attrition we would end up with a heavy
    load of regular contributors and fewer readers, therefor fewer new
    contributors. 
    
    I for one enjoy the fresh response of a new voices. I think membership
    requirements will discourage a novice noter from looking in and
    getting a feel for the note. And like someone already pointed out
    some people don't harbor the rosiest picture of what the Woman's
    note is all about. 
    
    My suggestion to those who feel that the passing of notes is a problem
    is to increase the use of anon postings. I think it is a very effective
    method of sharing meaningful experiences without laying out your
    lifestory for the world to whisper about.

    Gail

    I am also against the membership idea. When I first started reading
    notes I was quite shy about it and would never have even considered
    applying for membership to any file. My feeling is that this is true
    of many noters and we would lose a lot of potential new readers
    and writers by doing so.
    
    My personal feeling is that there would be no real increase in
    accountability or security and there would be a great loss in
    membership both present and future.
    
    Bonnie

    
    	As a mostly read noter, I rather you didn't.  If it had
    	been a members-only file when I began to read it, I probably
    	would have passed by.  (Probably due to laziness)
    
    	I've enjoyed reading the though-provoking notes as well as the
    	light ones.
    
    	I understand the sensitivity and courage of those who would
    	like it a members-only.  But, I think a more open readership
    	would encourage different points of view.  I think it may get
    	to be one-sided or limited if it is a member-only.

    Sometimes, I would really *like* to know who is reading.  I *want*
    to know who is listening.  Also, it would give me a feel for the size
    of the readership.  And if people who sign up just to read-only are on
    a membership list so someone knows they're in here anyways, maybe it's
    an even smaller step to signing in or contributing a note than it would
    have been before.
    
    and as for hit-and-run noters, there is a *reason* you haven't seen a
    lot of them.  They are generally taken care of as quickly as possible.
    Membership, I feel, might help reduce potential abuse of the notesfile.  
    
    I feel that it might, indeed, discourage people who just want to take a
    look around, particularly if they get the impression that we're
    "elitist" or "don't want dissenting opinions", but I've heard people
    who've either taken quick glances at the file, or are running on
    hearsay about the file, say we're a bunch of "upstart feminist bitches"
    (or whatever derogatory remarks have you) anyway.  I'm not sure that we
    would lose THAT many more potential readers, as so many people hear 
    about the file by word-of-mouth and are so turned off simply by THAT 
    activity that they don't bother to look for themselves.
    
    Actually, if someone took the time and energy to gain membership, they
    might stay LONGER in the file, browse more OFTEN, because they DID
    choose to make that minor 15-second effort to gain access to the file.
    
    And maintenance of the membership list may well take a good deal of
    time.....that point is true.
    
    Just some thoughts,
    
    -Jody
    
    
    
    

    I'd like to see =wn= become members-only.  I think it would
    encourage more participation by people who really want to
    be here; also, I think in general the file would feel 'safer'
    for those of us who are afraid of a wide open, invisible,
    audience.
    
    IMHO, of course.
    Maia
    

    Well here is a specific example of why I would not like to see this
    conference become membership only. I was just in another conference
    (New_Hampshire), someone was looking for Wedding ideas, sound familiar.
    Well I refered her to this conference, hit KP7 etc. She was a novice
    notes user and wanted info quickly, as she is a temp. I can't say
    if she'll hit KP7, but I think she'll be more likely to do that
    than " Please contact the following person for membership to the
    Woman's note conference, once you have been added as a member then
    you can access this conference and ask this same question there"
    
    I know what I would do. I would say that's not worth it and hope
    someone posts the info where I asked for it. 
    
    Gail    

    hmmm...it sounds like you're saying the lead time between asking for
    and getting membership would be discouraging.  If that's so, what lead
    time do you think would be acceptable, Gail?  It sounds a potentially
    important point.
    
    		    				=maggie				

   Re: .0

   > data.  To allow active members, particularly women, to keep better
   > track of who may be reading what they write, or collecting information
   > about how much they write, we are considering closing the file to
   > non-members as allowed by corporate policy.
   
    Why should it concern women more than men who is "collecting information
    about how much they write? 
    
    >            Access will be given/modified/removed as soon as that
    > moderator can make the change to the membership list.  

    I already belong to a few "membership only" conferences. It has been
    my experience that - while moderators try to keep up with things as
    much as possible - initial requests for access or changes to nodenames
    do not always get processed in a timely fashion.
 
    >                                                    *** Read-only
    > members could remain read-only, the only change would be that their
    > names would be visible on the membership list.***
    
    So then the confidentiality of the Read-only members is being compromised.
    
    > We are very interested in having guidance from the community on this
    > proposal.  

    I think it's a bad idea. I see absolutely no benefits, and more than
    a few negative aspects.
                                   
                           
    Re: .16
    
    >           as a point of interest, many contractors do contribute
    > regularly to notefiles both technical and non; so far as I can tell
    > there is no problem with that, though an hourly-rate contractor would
    > of course be required ethically not to bill for time spent in non-
    > contract-related activity.
    
    I've wondered about that. There are *some* contractors writing in this 
    file, whose contributions are both frequent and lengthy. I'd be interested
    in knowing how these people bill out their time to DEC. 
    
       Alan    						

I would not like to see this file become a 'members-only' conference.  In fact,
where it to become so, I probably would not be a member unless my current 
participation made it automatic.

While I do not object to the principle of a conference requiring membership, I
generally do not join unless there is a pressing business or personal need to
do so.  =wn= is special to me, but is not a lifeline.

I do not have much faith in increased 'safeness' in a membership requirement.
There are those who read and write here now who have found my views and my
life objectionable and I presume that they would continue to be welcomed as
members.  They would be no less free to send mail or make hurtful comments here.
If there is that which I fear to enter now, I will still fear to do so if I 
know the names of my audience.

At some deeper level, it _feels_ elitist even if my mind recognises that it 
probably is not.

  Ann

    
    I vote "no restrictions'!! My reasons are the same as those already
    listed. I think if this was a member-only file eventually someone
    would open up another one.
    
    Kate
    

Vote: No.

Feelings: mixed.

On one hand, there are many times I have wanted to know if a particular 
person was reading (particularly people in my group, or people I am 
corresponding with via other notesfiles or such), because it is always
nice to know what someone knows about you when interacting with them.
I try not to post anything that I *really* don't want the world to know,
but I do post things that I am not excited about the prospect of certain
people knowing.  

But...
I  would bet that members-only policy would discourage people from joining.
I probably wouldn't have.  There was another member's-only conference that
I was interested in, but for a year didn't join because I didn't identify
with the group the notesfile was for, and felt uncomfortable about joining.
In particular, I think male mebership would drop *considerably*.  (Some would
consider this a positive.  I don't.)

It doesn't provide much in the way of security.  If there is someone or
some group of people you don't want reading your note, you can find out
if they are reading *now*, but there is no guarantee they won't add the group
later and read said note.

I think it would discourage dissenting opinion from the =wn= "politically
correct opinion."  You (mods) may state explicitly that you won't revoke
membership for opinions stated, but there are people out there who are
paranoid and won't believe you (corporate and moderator policy notwithstanding.)
I'll bet this is particularly true for male noters.  (Think of all the
accusations/assumptions that the mods are particularly harsh in hiding and/or
deleting notes by males.)

Summary: No, with reservations.  If you did make it M.O. I'd join.

D!

    
    I think it would be very appropriate to make =wn= members-only. I hope
    you do it.
    
    Dorian

    
    I moderate a member-only conference.  It's got a couple hundred
    members and really isn't all that hard to take care of.  Membership
    requests can be handled easily and promptly.  For this file, the
    initial startup costs could  be a bit extreme though :>)  With the
    execption of one person I had trouble "verifying", I think all 
    membership requests have been granted within the hour.
    			
    Member-only conferences have their place and I think Digital needs
    a members-only version of =wn=.  Here's why -
    
    Last year some relatively new readonly member had his wife leave
    him for a relationship with a woman.  This bozo read some of my
    older notes that mentioned I had once been married to a man and
    decided that I was the appropriate person to help him understand
    his situation (and cure his wife). He became quite obnoxious and 
    harassing - even going to the trouble of finding my home phone/address 
    and calling late at night. When he offered to come "visit" I about
    lost it.
    
    It took me a while to figure out where he'd picked up my name. =Wn=
    didn't even occur to me until quite a while after this incident
    ended. Supposedly, this issue has been dealt with and he is no longer 
    particpating in this conference - but what guarantee do
    I have that this guy isn't going to start reading again? At least
    registering  our membership will enable some of to know who's
    in our audience. 
    
    As for anon postings, I don't feel the stuff I write needs to be
    hidden in that kind of a closet.  Some weeks everthing I write 
    would have to be hidden.
    
    		=maureen
    
    

 It seems like the biggest reason to make the conference members only is
so that people will know who accesses the file. One reason people are against
membership requirements is due to the time delay inherent in such a system.

 How about a "membership" that is automatic? If everyone is going to be allowed
in anyway, why not make it so that "membership" is established when you
open the file?

 I think this would be possible to implement using a custom written program
that monitors the logical links to the RAINBO:: MOSAIC:: clusters, and simply
logs in each user that accesses the file. I personally do not have adequate
network software experience to write such a program, but I believe that such a 
program would be a relatively small amount of effort for a knowledgeable
programmer.

 The membership list could be updated on a daily or weekly basis, and would be
read accessible by all.

 This way, we'd know all of the read-only members as well as those who write.

 The Doctah

    Maureen,
    
    Making =wn= members only would not have prevented the incident
    you described from occuring. The person could just as easily
    accessed the membership only gay conference and done the
    same thing you describe. All having a membership does is allow
    you to kick someone out after the fact.
    
    Having members won't necessarily deter the odd balls and harassers
    and it will act as a barrier to many women getting to find a place
    to share their problems and concerns and finding ways to deal with
    their problems.
    
    Mark,
    
    I think that a lot of people would be quite upset if their name
    appeared on a list accessable to the general readership just
    because they opened womannotes.
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. if any 'read onlies' want to write to any moderator about
    this and aren't familiar with notes, you can write to an
    individual moderator by typing send /author while reading one
    of our notes. You can write to all of us by typing send /members
    while in womannotes.

Bonnie:

> I think that a lot of people would be quite upset if their name
> appeared on a list accessable to the general readership just
> because they opened womannotes.
    
  Actually, in the general case, this information *IS* available to
  anyone who wants to take the time to collect it.  While RAINBO::
  and MOSAIC:: seem to having taken some steps to prevent it (and
  I don't feel like setting off too many security alarms investigating),
  you can find out who is linked to most nodes by simply typing:

    TELL <nodename> SHOW KNOWN LINKS


  Do it often enough and you'll have a good sample of who accesses
  the notesfiles on that system.  (It doesn't tell you *WHICH*
  notesfile if there is more than one notesfile.)  Do it really
  often and it will probably rise the ire of the target system
  manager :-) as they wonder why NML is running all the time!

                                   Atlant

... it sounds like a bad idea to me.

Basically, I'm with those who are concerned that the value of the conference
will be diminished as casual readers are driven out.

It seems like there are two possibilities. 

1.  The readership diminishes significantly.  That seems like a real loss
    to me.  It's a silent loss, too -- the loss of people that you'll
    never know about, whose lives might have been changed, but won't be
    now.

2.  The readership doesn't diminish significantly.  In that case, I can't
    imagine what security value there will be in having a list of all
    10,000 people who've ever read the conference; and I shudder to imagine 
    the work involved in maintaining it.  (That's two orders of magnitude
    bigger than any membership list I've ever heard of.  I'm sure nobody's
    ever found out what a membership list that size does to Notes.)

It seems like there's a real irony in the idea of having to register and put
your name on a publicly accessible list in order to read notes in a conference
that has one of the most liberal policies on the net for the anonymous 
*posting* of notes.

	-Neil

    re .39 (Bonnie)
    
    I think members only would deter this type of incident.  Folks
    intent on harassment tend not to want to identify themselves upfront.
    
    I agree that =wn= needs to be accessible to the casual user community
    and requiring membership will turn away potential users - that's
    why I suggested a second (closed) conference in addition to the
    current =wn=.  This frequently seems to be the first conference a
    lot of women note in.  Judging from the number of "this is my first
    attempt and I hope I don't make a mistake" type notes, the first
    noting attempts are scary, and we need to maintain an open
    non-threatening environment.
    
    

The idea of turning =wn= into a members-only conference has been proposed
and discussed before, at least once if not more often.  Jody, can you
provide pointers?  I think it was about two years ago, and all the same
benefits were claimed then as are being promoted now.

The primary claim, then as now, is that having the conference be restricted
somehow will make women feel more secure about writing because they'll know
who may read what they write.  This would be, unfortunately, a rather
dangerous misconception, because in fact no such guarantee would exist.  Though
one may be able to scan the membership list (which is likely to be several
hundred names, at the least) and be able to identify people who may well
read the note, there's no way to determine who WON'T read the note.  Someone
may join tomorrow and see it, a friend who is a member may pass it along
(yes, this is considered bad form by some, but it happens), or perhaps the
noter is not familiar with all the usernames by which the person may access
notes.

It would be a tragedy if this false sense of security caused someone to write
something that they wouldn't want seen by certain other people, and to then
have their writing viewed by the very person(s) they wanted to avoid.  Indeed,
the "person-who-is-not-to-see-this" may not even be an employee and still
may learn of it or even see the text directly.  It happens.

Although I support the goal of reducing risk and encouraging otherwise
reluctant noters to write, I feel that this proposal is a giant step in the
wrong direction, and simply hides the risk that is always there.

Another negative effect will be to reduce or eliminate participation by many
who, for various reasons, may not want to "admit" that they read notes.  These
may include temporary workers and secretaries - groups who may be most in need
of what this conference has to offer.  I believe that many of these people will
be afraid to sign up, for fear of being "found out" that they use notes.  This
is sad, but, I think, true.

Some seem to think that having a restricted membership will somehow reduce
or eliminate nuisance notes.  It may well do this, but only as a side effect
of making the conference less accessible by all.  All of the problems that
this conference has had with nuisance noters could be addressed through
other means, with a by-product of INCREASING accessibility and usefulness
to the noting community.

It may be painful to admit, but there may be some things that WOMANNOTES,
or any notes conference for that matter, may just be unable to do.  Please,
let's keep =wn= the effective and powerful force for good that it is today,
and not hide it under a bushel-basket.

					Steve

    While I have already stated my opposition to the members-only 
    conference and the 'membership list', I realize that there may be
    instances where there is a real need for someone to know who
    is reading their notes. Without the membership list, can this
    be provided with alternate means, if a demonstrable need exists?
    
    I wonder if we are trying to solve a small problem with a major
    fix here ?
    

    dana

    Although I would like to know who reads my notes I don't think the
    members only policy should be invoked. It probably would be only a
    false sense of security. There have been times when I've written
    notes about my feelings that I probably shouldn't have, perhaps some
    future manager will hold it against me. But membership won't stop
    that.
    
    I've always been surprized when someone comes up to me (that I don't
    see writing in notes) and says something about one of my notes. I
    keep forgeting the wide read(only)ership. Perhaps we just need to
    watch what we say more closely - this is not a private counciling
    group afterall.

    And as a side point, I moderate several low use technical files some
    of which are members only. They can be a real hassle when you end up
    trouble shooting why someone's cluster alias only works
    intermittantly or they have half a dozen nodes and no alias or a
    dozen other things. (of course, where I work at the CSC things are
    always breaking as people test software and customer problems, more
    stable environments probably don't have as big an issue). liesl

    I vote against going to members-only. I doubt very much that I would
    ask for membership, and would hence stop participating in this
    conference. I find this conference very useful and enjoyable. I am not
    as active as I once was due to other time constraints, but I have read
    all versions of WOMANNOTES since Day One.

    As a moderator of a members only conference (and I am one of 3) I find
    the time involved in exchanging mail back and forth with people who
    want to be members but who don't send the correct info (or even
    understand what the correct info is) for membership, to be at times a
    large drain. Granted it may only be a couple times a week for me, but I
    would hate to be point-woman for adding members to this conference.

    Secondly, I don't feel that it is the "Digital thing to do" for a
    conference of this type to be members only. To me it smacks of elitism.
    I believe, in reality, it would deny a lot of people access to this
    file, simply because they wouldn't feel good about asking for
    membership. I know from experience that people feel like they have
    to have a good reason to join a members-only conference, even one that
    is open to all employees.

    Tamzen

    The topic of closing womannotes to members-only was discussed in:
    
    Womannotes-V1
    560 - Policy Question
    
    A members-only file which was supplemental to womannotes was started by
    a male noter, noting from a generic account, and was announced in:
    
    Womannotes-V1
    626 - Closed Membership WOMEN Conference
    
    I believe that conference closed at some point thereafter.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    	It's been a long time since I last posted a note in here. Many
    times I just check in and do a "set seen" and leave. Some of you
    may notice that my addreess is changed. 
    
    	I don't like members only notesfiles. Reason: If you
    can't/won't/don't want to defend writings or have writings seen,
    personal mail may be best. Many times I have sent personal mail
    to members of this community and found that it works as well as
    not. Public notes bring both positive and negative responses, even
    when sensitivity is requested.
    
    	I probably won't be back in here for a bit, but I'll be
    watching.....  8^)
    
    Ken 
                      

    Jody,
    
    The Closed Membership Conference died when the person who started it
    lost the disk space to keep it going.
    
    It was never very active.
    
    Bonnie

Reading some of the comments here from people who have been surprised at
their "noteriety" brought to mind an interesting observation.  Many people
think of the =wn= readership as a rather small community, and may not think
much about the size of the audience before writing.  With a members-only
conference, it would be rather daunting for such people to scroll through
page after page after page of unfamiliar names and thus decide not to write
after all.  Indeed, for some, making it known who MIGHT be reading their note
would prevent them from writing at all.

To those people who want a list of who can read their note in a restricted
conference, the DEC phone book is a convenient starting point.

					Steve

    I don't like the idea of making this a members only conference.  
    It might create a false sense of security, but I don't think it
    would really slow anyone down if they wanted to do any harm. 
    Adding an additional barrier to participation will undoubtedly 
    discourage a lot of potential noters, and I think the wide 
    diversity of participants is one of this file's real strengths.
    
    Karen.

    
    
    		I have just read all 51 responses prior
    		to adding my vote.  Without re-hashing
    		what has already been said, I am in agreement
    		with the dissenting population. Please don't
    		make this a members only conference. I really
    		don't believe it will buy us any advantage.
      
    						kim

    I think that a membership policy would lead to the worst of both
    worlds:
    
    o	there would be so many members that "accountability" wouldn't be 
    	there
    o	there would be enough members to provide a burden on the moderators 
    	entering them, keeping up with node changes, etc (*)
    o	it would be a barrier to entry to many people - not me, since I'm
    	used to being here, but to the regular tide of new users
    o	it would give an impression of a narrow, inward-looking community
    
    (*)	however, I'm sure that the moderators have thought of this and the 
    	amount of time they would have to devote to implememting the
    	memebership scheme were it to gain approval, and I salute their 
    	dedication.
    
    		Andrew.

    The sheer size of the readership of Womannotes would make it difficult
    to enforce membership requirements.
    
    I am a member of a members-only conference, and subscribe to a private
    little Internet-based mailing list. Both work because they are fairly
    small, and the subject matter is sufficiently sensitive to make the
    trouble of being members only worthwhile.
    
    How about a public conference for everybody, and then a members-only
    conference for those who want it? Don't announce the private conference
    in easynotes.lis, but put a pointer to it in the public conference.
    
    ...laura

    I have to say I don't like the idea of a two conference system either,
    a private and public WN. It vaguely reminds me of the controversy
    of a "secret" woman's organization plotting against <whomever>.
    Restricting certain types of conversation to a members only conference
    is sure to alienate many regulars. I for one would rethink my
    readership should the conf. split. I've never agreed with the FWO/FGD
    split and I think this would be an amplified "more of the same".

    
    Gail

    I too think that splitting would not be a good move.  It's one thing to
    close this file or paint it purple or whatever, but trying to "split
    the action" between two would make everyone crazy.
    
    						=maggie

    I haven't had time to read all of the previous replies, but I've
    read some of them.  I agree with the people who don't want to see
    this become a members only conference.  I think the spontaneity
    of an open file where anyone is free to stumble upon it, read and
    contribute, letting "the chips fall where they may", makes for a
    more interesting notesfile.  Also, if this were to become a members
    only file we will no longer be able to reach people who most need
    to become enlightened by this conference, because those people will
    not bother to join since they won't think it will be of interest
    to them.
    
    I also don't like the idea of two conferences (one open, one members
    only).  I have an idea that neither file would be as interesting as
    this one is.
    
    Lorna
    

    I find it puts me off when I see more and more controls in notes
    files. This is either a free exchange or it isn't. If it isn't
    I don't want it.
    
    It's up to the moderator to chase me off - there are several
    notes I never read anymore. This is my second write to a note
    file in 5 years - I'm a reader. I support the notes file and
    check in now and then when I get a minute. I am not easily put
    off - but I will not be a receptor to "controlled information".
    If I want pap or commercial data I'll go for it - I certainly
    have never looked for it in a notes file.
    
    Control if you must - but remember it will change your readership.
    
    Thanks for the opportunity to sound off - hope it's not my last.
    
    Janet
    

    I vote 'no' to the members-only suggestion for most of the reasons
    already mentioned.  I tend to be a read-only member unless there is a
    topic that is especially important to me, and I doubt that I would go
    to the trouble to join a members-only conference.  I would think that
    members-only would deter people like me from joining, and I think that
    would have a negative effect on the file.
    
    

    Keep it open!
    
    
    Barb

    For those who are counting - NO.
    
    Since I made the first list of 100 most frequent noters in =wn=, I
    don't think I qualify as a novice noter.  But I just learned from this
    string that closed conferences are open to anyone who wants to apply. 
    That bit of information alone, if it's missing, will eliminate far too
    many new participants to justify the questionable benefits of closing
    the file.
    
    Karen

    I would hate to see this become an exclusive file for many of the
    reasons previously mentioned.  For me, part of the value of this file
    is a **free** exchange about topics of interest to women.  I feel that
    the "read-onlies", whether male or female, benefit from this exchange
    of ideas from a broad spectrum of contributors.  In my opinion, if the
    membership is restricted in any way it will, in turn, be constricted
    whether that is the intention of the restrictions or not.
    
    Nanci

    *********************************************************************

    .............................	I do offer a suggestion, how
    about another file that's members only for those that are interested
    in more security, or working deeper issues in a more direct fashon.
    
    *********************************************************************

    I second this idea....I feel that there are issues VERY important to
    our general population that would be better served in a more secure
    environment with a members-only access.  There are issues that are 
    NOT covered by any of Digital's personal issue member's only notesfiles.

    justme....jacqui

    Hi.
    
    I don't think it is a good idea to make this conference "membership
    only".  Aren't VAXNOTES to be used to benefit the *entire* Digital
    community?  If you restrict this conference's accesibility you will be
    losing out on very diverse opinions and topics.  There may be lots of
    sensitive topics but everyone has the right to their own opinions and
    it sometimes makes for interesting reading and stimulating
    conversations as well.
    
    IMHO, that is.  Tammi (who's usually in READ ONLY mode)
    

    Tammi, from the way your note is written, it looks as though you may
    believe that the proposal would include a "entrance exam" for
    membership, and that certainly is not true.  The file would continue to
    serve "the *entire* Digital community"...or at least as many as cared
    to tell us they wanted membership; no "test" would be required of
    anyone.
    
    I just wanted to make that point clear to dispel any possible
    confusion.
    
    						=maggie

    =maggie:
    
    Oops, sorry.  No, I understand because I also belong to a "members
    only" conference and *did* belong to one that was just a small group of
    people with common ties.  I prefer the "open conferences" because of
    their diversity.  And in the members only conference a lot of times I
    hesitate to write so as to not sound ingnorant of certain situations. 
    In this conference I don't feel that way.
    
    Tammi
    

    Okay, fair enough.

    
    I haven't read all the replies, but my vote is still YES to the
    proposal.
    

    I vote no but not because of loss of membership.  Restricting the 
    file might cost some readers, but it also might attract some new ones.  
    I don't see the potential net loss of part of the readership a problem.  
    It happens every time a conference moves and isn't used as a reason for 
    not moving.  It shouldn't be used here.  I also don't think secretaries
    and contract workers are any more "in need" of this file than anyone
    else.  There are millions, billions of women who will never even hear
    of this file never mind read it.  Who we don't reach shouldn't be of
    concern since we can't go world-wide, publically.
    
    But I vote no against restricting this file because that idea gives me 
    the feeling that "women", as represented by the file, are going
    belly-up, unwittingly admitting that they're no contest for men in a 
    discussion and that they therefore need a more private arena where the
    rules have more teeth in them.  I see it as sort of a retreat and as 
    such, I think it sends just the opposite message than we really want to 
    send.  What I think is needed is for every woman noter to have a stronger
    sense of conectedness with one another so that it isn't so easily 
    broken or interrupted by "hit and run" notes.  We need to practice
    what we preach.  If one slips by the moderators, we who are involved in 
    the string affected should be able to recognize it for what it is and 
    just ignore it, inform the moderators and/or refer to it only in
    passing or in an aside joke before continuing on with the "real" 
    business of the string.  
    
    If we have a sense of our own worth and of the value of our own words, 
    we won't be so easily affected by trash notes that we need more or
    stronger rules, or bigger teeth to enforce the ones we have.  If ever
    we were strident, it should be with this kind of a situation, when it
    happens.  I'm sure Mennotes has no inclination to go private and plenty 
    of us go in there attempting to turn the tides of the prevailing
    conversations.  The difference is, I believe, that it doesn't threaten
    them.  They know what they're saying, they know what they mean, and
    they feel confident that other men do, too.  Sometimes they think TOO
    MUCH that way, ;-) but I think women often think too much the other way.
    We're generally too tentative, too unsure of our rights to be able to
    withstand the direct challenge, (of which there is plenty), and/or hit
    and run notes.  Womannotes needs a shot of self-esteem, that's all.
    
    And make no mistake, as other noters have stated, a private conference
    would be just as public as this one in terms of potential readers.  It
    is still on DECnet, still accessible to everyone, and still covered
    under the P&P.  No one should be writing anything here they wouldn't want
    their boss to see.   Let's not get too complacent here.  This isn't a
    kaffee klatch or the therapist's couch - it's the Digital network.
    
    I say we should show our strength by staying public.  We mustn't go
    running to the authorities because the boys won't let us play the way
    we want.  It's *our* file, *our* freedom, and we should just take it 
    that way - unquestioningly.  Hit and Run noters will be given a fair
    trial, then HUNG!  ;-)

    Without reading many of the replies in this string, I vote No!
    
    When a conference is members-only, I have found it difficult to
    (a) know of the conference's existence, (b) feel it was really ok 
    to join without feeling like an intruder, and (c) find out *how* to 
    join!  I don't want other people, women *or* men, to feel that way
    about this conference, especially since making it members-only
    would not significantly improve "security."  (In fact, might that
    not give members a *false* sense of security?)
    
    Nancy

    Reply .70 raises a useful point.

    For every new participant who feels "safer" in a members-only
    conference, there may be a non-participant who is too inhibited (for
    whatever reason) about taking the step of joining. If one of the goals
    is to attract "shy" members, it might backfire, unless there's some way
    of distributing Powdermilk Biscuits (my, they're tasty and expeditious)
    over the net.

    The result could end up a wash, with the only real changes being
    (1) fewer participants and (2) immensely more overhead for the
    moderators.

    I'll abstain as to "voting", but doubt I'd join if the conference went
    members-only.

>                     <<< Note 982.35 by GEMVAX::KOTTLER >>>
>                              -< wonderful idea! >-
>    
>    I think it would be very appropriate to make =wn= members-only. I hope
>    you do it.
>    
>    Dorian


  How do you propose validating prospective members?  You don't seem
  to be on ELF!

                                   Atlant

    
    I think all my reasons have been given by others...
    
    I too, vote NO...
    
    deb
    

    Make mine a *NO* vote.
    
    My personal experience is that there are other conferences that I would
    like to participate in but seeing them *MEMBERS ONLY* I will not ask to
    join.
    
    Had this conference been *MEMBERS ONLY* I wouldn't be here.
    
    As a *READ ONLY* noter the inital benefit to participation here is
    mostly for myself BUT as we LEARN, SEE, and UNDERSTAND others points of
    view, we ALL gain.  "no man is an island"
    
    If nothing else this topic might cause more sign-ins.  I did sign in
    because I want to be *HERE* should the conference go *MEMBERS ONLY*
    
    BTW There sure was a special feeling of welcome getting the note from
    the moderator acknowledging signing-in.  Thanks.

    A quick tally of those with definite opinions
    gave me 8 'yes' and 30 'no' statements. 
    
    or 79% 'no' and 21% 'yes'
   

    I vote no. 
    
    If this question has been brought up before, perhaps it's an indication
    that there's a need for some focused spin-off conferences with
    membership requirements. A support-group type conference for rape
    victims comes to mind.
    
    Kathy
    

    I think the moderators' assistance with ANONYMOUS notes and/or
    replies should be made more "official" so that those who are
    hesitant about "publically" disclosing personal info are aware
    of that option.
    
    On the other hand <thank goodness I only have 2 hands...:-) >
    I myself have on occasion hesitated (read that "refrained")
    from asking for an anonymous posting because "Someone" will
    still know who the originator is...and in some cases, I might
    know the moderator(s) [this is not unique to Womennotes, by the
    way].  So I did not enter my information, query, request for
    support, etc.
    
    But then, I have had a background where there was real reason
    for paranoia, up to and including 24 hour police protection.
    And there are many of us here with such scars that might make
    us hesitant to "trust".  <my shrink supports his vacations/food/
    housing helping me with trust, heh heh>
    
    There are a few of you I have contacted privately about issues that
    I did not share in the notesfile, and to you I say THANKS FOR LISTENING
    and I HOPE/trust? that you did not share the information with others,
    even if *you* thought they could be trusted.
    
    I wish the world were safer.  I wish there was no hunger.  I wish...
    
    	Pennie

	I vote no.  If it does become members only, please sign me up.
     If a second members only -wn- is created, I will just stay here.

				Tnx  Kbear

    I vote no. Sometimes I get frustrated and delete -wm- from
    my notebook and then in a week I'll add it back in.
    Don't you think my "on-again"/"off-again" add_me requests
    would annoy the mods? I'm sure they'd have better things to
    do than to add_me/delete_me.
    
    pat :-)

    Well, once we figured that out, Pat, we just wouldn't delete your name
    from the list anymore meanwhile ;')
    
    Seriously, managing the membership list shouldn't be a consideration: 
    a small procedure file would handle the tasks very easily.
    
    						=maggie

    =maggie, in reading your responses I get the feeling that you're
    not exactly neutral on this issue. 
    
    Why do you *appear* to be pushing the idea? (Please forgive me if I've
    gotten the wrong impression.)
    
      Alan
    

    Please don't make it membership only.  I am mostly read only with
    occaisional replies.
    
    Two years ago when I stumbled onto womannotes, I was in an extremely
    bad space.  Reading only womannotes for many months probably saved my
    sanity, if not a career.  I wouldn't have had the energy at the time to
    apply for membership into the conference, and hence wouldn't have
    found a wonderful, if unknowning, support group.  
    
    Through =wn=, I finally got the courage I needed to not only stand up
    for myself in a very difficult situation, as well as to make a very
    successful for me career change.
    
    So for the many read only people, as well as myself, and any other
    person who finds her or himself in the miserable state I was in, please
    leave this conference open.
    
    Meg

    Why do you believe that, Alan?  Because all my demystifying comments
    have been one-sided?  That's because virtually all the people who've
    put forward their reasons have been opposed!  It's very difficult to
    determine whether a person who says only "yes" may be operating from 
    a false premise.
    
    						=maggie

    G'Day,
    
    	After 83 replies, do the moderators have any input to add as to
    when a decision will be made and what the likely outcome will be?
    
    David.  (Who hates waiting for things to happen :-) )
    

    Well as you may know, David, when we've taken formal votes in the past,
    we've announced it a week in advance and then kept the polls open for a
    full seven days.  This to give people who are away or who only read on
    weekends a chance to vote.  We didn't couch this as a formal balloting,
    but it seems only sensible that we leave the question open for at least
    the traditional two weeks time for the traditional reasons.
    
    						=maggie

I've been a 'Read-Only' of =wn= for almost a year now and I would NOT
like to see it become FOR MEMBERS ONLY.  I'm sure that I would not
have applied for membership had it been when I started to read it.

I find this conference very powerful, enlightening, and a joy to read.
Please don't discourge others who may also find it so. (IMO, making it
MEMBERS ONLY may do just that.)

-Hamp

PS. BTW, if in fact it does become a MEMBERS ONLY notes conference, I would
    apply for membership.

    I vote _no_ (keep it open).  I think that closing the conference
    would provide a false sense of security at the price of compromising
    the anonymity of those read-only noters who wish to remain anonymous.

    I don't like membership lists.  Like the list of the 100 most frequent
    writers in this conference, a membership list can be abused.  And as
    others have pointed out, anyone can join, so it doesn't "protect"
    those who write here at all, or restrict the reading audience.

    It's been remarked occasionally that some people think that the =wn=
    community is a group of man-hating subversive radical feminists, or
    somesuch.  Great, so let's make a list of those man-hating subversive
    radical feminists that anyone can see (without reading a word of the
    conference itself!) simply by sending mail (subject to verification) 
    to one of the moderators!  Somehow, I don't think this is an effective
    way to combat that problem.

    For the record, I doubt I would have joined had womennotes been a 
    closed conference. (I still haven't signed in!)

	Sharon

	As I read through all the replies (89??) I kept coming back
	to NO this should not be a members only file.  That would be
	a bad move for any number of reasons - to me, personally, it
	would mean that I would not participate.

	Just because I can get a list of the 1000+ members of the file
	it does not mean that I can figure out who sent the insulting
	picture through interoffice mail.

	I do not see any benifit to a restricted file.  If you really
	want to know who reads womannotes - put it on a private workstation
	with lots of disk space and  monitor the network activity.
	Anything else if window dressing on a brick wall.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			The Goddess knows that I am in and out
			of this file more often than the weather
			changes in New England and my attitude
			changes as often.

    No.  I don't want a restricted conference. 

    If it becomes restricted, I'll request membership. Probably. 

    I don't see any point in duplicating two conferences of
    general "Topics of Interest to Women," with one restricted
    and one open. I see a great deal of value in having
    restricted conference(s) on *particular* sensitive topics
    which may be of especial interest to women (someone mentioned
    rape issues, and there are plenty of others), and having
    those conferences mentioned here along with who to contact to
    become a member. 

    -- Linda 

    
Re .72 -

>>    I think it would be very appropriate to make =wn= members-only. I hope
>>    you do it.
>>    
>>    Dorian


>  How do you propose validating prospective members?  You don't seem
>  to be on ELF!

>                                   Atlant


Whether or not I personally would be eligible for membership seems to me 
irrelevant. Not that I wouldn't want to be - I would. I just think that, 
given women's past history and present situation, enough women's issues are 
sensitive enough to warrant a more restricted forum. Maybe not all women 
have the self-confidence to really speak their minds easily on such issues 
and maybe such a forum would help.

As for how to validate prospective members -

<smiley face on>

of course, I'd hope reasonable criteria would apply. You know, swimsuit,
evening gown, talent (how well can ya sing "God Bless America"?)... 

;-)

Dorian

On an earlier note on anon postings:

Co-mods don't generally share information about anonymous posters with each
other. In the past, a co-mod has asked me if she could contact a particular
anonymous noter, and I asked the poster first. In another case, an anonymous
poster explictly asked me _not_ to share her/his identity with the rest of the
co-mods.

So, if you want to post anonymously, you need only 'trust' one of the co-mods.

And I work in Secure Systems :-).
	Mez

    I'd like to reinforce what Mez said:  we *are* trustworthy, we *do not*
    have any sort of "litmus test" on what you can post anonymously, we *do
    not* have limits on how often you can post anonymously, and we *do not*
    reveal your identity even to each other unless you tell us it's okay or
    there's some serious reason why we cannot handle it alone.  If you have
    something that you want to post but you don't want your name attached,
    by all means send it to one of us with your instructions.
    
    						=maggie

    "Any club that would have me as a member is not worth joining"
    
    I enter this conference occasionally. I first, in recent memory, entered
    it when a reply-string here, about India, was referred to in VAXWRK::INDIA.
    
    I enter it more often since then. Still it is =WN=, do your own thing.
    
    I'll expect I'll drift away then register if something important 
    to me comes up in here and is brought to my attention.
    
    -Shantanu ( male )

    I have noticed a few responses that said "Well, if it had been
    members-only, I wouldn't have joined."
    
    I didn't know all of the names of those folks, but I did recognize 2
    of them. 
    
    If being a members-only file had kept those 2 women out of womannotes,
    it would not have been worth it. If ONE woman joins in the fray here
    and contributes her life experience, "dukes it out" with those who
    disagree, comes to important realizations about herself and her life
    because of that participation. Well then, it's worth dealing with the
    ocassional rabble and Idiot Contingent.
    
    The Rabble and Idiots Brigade *can* be dealt with. We *have* anonymous
    posting. Those of us who tire of the fray can rest and come back or not
    come back, as we see fit. I don't think making the file members-only
    would have *enough* of the desired affect to risk even one woman's 
    not participating because of the members-only rule.
    
    Perhaps there are those women who *won't* participate if we don't
    go to members-only. If so, NOW we have another consideration.
    
    The idea is not to lose women's participation.
    
    --DE
    

�    If we are dealing with issues like rape, sexuality - maybe
�    there can be spin-off notesfiles (where members are asked
�    *why* they want to join) where more accountability can
�    be preserved. 
    
    I'm told by Corporate ER that no such question can be asked, Nusrat,
    except where a clear business need exists as in, for example,
    new-product files.
    
    						=maggie

    	Another "no" vote.
    
    	First off, we don't need added protection from "hit and run" noters.
    	We fend for ourselves quite well (*too* well, sometimes, in fact.) :)
    	Some of us more than others...  ;^)
    
    	Second, I don't think that a closed file would add much privacy, but
    	I think it would imply a *need* for privacy (for reasons left to the 
    	imaginations of those outside the file.)  As many misconceptions as
    	there already are about the file, I'd rather people have the option
    	of seeing it for themselves (rather than trying to imagine what we're
    	doing based on the stories that go around about us.)
    
    	Recently, I read some derogatory descriptions of Womannotes in another
    	conference, and I almost had to laugh at the mixture of opposing
    	stereotypes.  On the one hand, the file was accused of being filled
    	with feminists (with all the usual stereotypes about manhating, etc.)
    	- but the file was *also* accused of having more recipes than the
    	COOKS notesfile.  (???)
    
    	I had these visions of people imagining that we cook up recipes
    	to poison men, or something.  ;^)
    
    	If people are going to have misconceptions about us, then I'd rather
    	we stay open so that those who take the time can find out exactly
    	how mistaken some of these ideas are!

    Yes, Suzanne, and another complaint about =wn= in the same string
    focused on the two notes on s-m and nipple piercing, giving the
    impression that was a major focus of the file.
    
    Kind of like the blind men and the elephant I guess.
    
    Bonnie

    So.....are we going to take this (I'm not sure if we can call the
    basenote a formal one) proposal, to make -WN- a members-only Con-
    ference to a vote?
    
    Or has the consensus to allow -WN- to remain "open" become somewhat
    apparent by now?
    
      Alan 

    
    re .102
    
    So what are the "usual stereotypes"...?

    From the way I read .102, the two stereotypes are defined below:

    > I almost had to laugh at the mixture of opposing stereotypes.  On
    > the one hand, the file was accused of being filled with feminists 
    > (with all the usual stereotypes about manhating, etc.) - but the 
    > file was *also* accused of having more recipes than the COOKS 
    > notesfile.  (???)
    
    One stereotype, about feminists, is that feminists hate men.  The 
    other, about women, is that what we really know about, and what we
    like to do most, is cook.  (And probably barefoot, too.)

    > I had these visions of people imagining that we cook up recipes to
    > poison men, or something.  ;^)

    Better take a good second look at all those menus that have been 
    entered into the dinner party note!

    CQ

    If it goes M.O., please add me to the membership. I have "used" this
    conference to gain different views on issues which I sometimes go
    through with my wife. We have been married for over twelve years, and
    some years are better than others. Like all married couples, we have
    our ups and downs. I have found this file to be very helpful at times
    for avoiding some issues as well, by gaining womens perspectives on
    things.
    
    My vote is no. If it were M.O. when I first started to read it, I would
    not have persued it.    Dan

    After consideration, I vote NO. 
    
    I can't see any benefits to a membership list. 
    
    I can see major disadvantages to restricting access, or even the
    appearance of restriction.  The only way to fight prejudice of any
    sort, whether based on color, sex, national origin, or job habits,
    is contact and conversation among people of different views. As
    women, we get the most benefit from reaching the most people.
    
    My ideal, if it were physically practical, would be to have all
    140,000 or whatever DEC employees participating in this conference
    having their eyes opened to all sides of the issues impacting
    women.
    
    I mean, don't you just wish your boss could hear our collective
    indignation about the glass ceiling?  Don't you think he just
    might be a little surprised?  And if he had to apply for
    membership, even if that membership were automatic, it's not
    likely that he'll be here.  But if all he has to do is open
    a conference and read, and no one will ever know . . . 
      
    --bonnie

          re:  982.108 (Bonnie Randall)

          > My ideal, if it were physically practical, would be to have
          > all 140,000 or whatever DEC employees participating in this
          > conference having their eyes opened to all sides of the issues
          > impacting  women.

          That _would_ be really neat.

          >    I mean, don't you just wish your boss could hear ...

          About glass ceilings?  Yes.

          About some other stuff...  [sigh] uh-uh.

          I mean, my supervisor is really cool, but I don't think I would
          want him to know of the majority of what I've written here.  It
          would feel ... awkward.

          I know, I know ...
          don't_put_in_notes_anything_you_don't_want_on_your_resume.  Well,
          there's a h*ll of a lot I've written here I wouldn't want on my
          resume, so I guess I should have been totally anonymous for just
          about everything.   I sense the mods cringing as they read that,
          as they might recall how often I write ;-).

          (Actually, since it was published just how often I wrote here,
          I'm only writing every third or fourth time I get the urge so as
          to not drown out anybody else, and then I wait a bit and evaluate
          if what I want to write _really_ contributes anything.)

          Some very good arguments (that I agree with) for _not_ making
          this a membership conference have been made...  But I would still
          feel a lot more comfortable about writing on certain subjects if
          I knew who reads this conference.

          Could a list be made available of who accessed the conference
          during a given month? (not how often, just the accounts of who
          accessed =wn= 1 or more times).

          The suggestion of a separate membership =wn= conference for
          "sensitive subjects" is interesting, but I don't want to advocate
          anything that would somehow detract from this file.

                                                       nancy b.

    I must confess to not reading all the replies to this note.  I only
    read the first 55 or so.  Regardless, I think that this conference
    should remain as is.  Restricting membership will not solve any 
    problems.
    

    re: .109
    
    Uh, I don't mean to send you into paranoia or anything, Nancy,
    but how do you know your supervisor DOESN'T read womannotes?
     
    --bonnie

    I haven't  read  all the replies, but I'll join in anyway. I think
    it's  a  mistake  to  make this conference members only, because I
    don't   think  that  will  accomplish  anything  except  make  the
    moderators'   jobs  unbearable.  It  would  be  hard  to  restrict
    membership  because of the P&P book, so we don't gain any privacy.
    We  would,  however,  stop  people from dropping in on a whim. The
    headaches   of  maintaining  the  membership  list  are  best  not
    discussed,  as  the  moderators  might  have  heart attacks at the
    thought.

RE: .109
    Nancy suggests that it might be interesting to know who is reading
    one's  notes. The problem is that even if you know who the members
    are today, someone could join tommorow and read notes you wouldn't
    have  written if you knew he was going to read them. Also, some of
    the  annonymous  noters  haven't  written  anything here that they
    signed,  so they might not appreciate having people know that they
    were in =wn= reading responses  to their annonymous notes.

--David

    
    Re: .109
    
    	Hi Nancy,
    
    		I read this conference regularly and write here very
    	infrequently. However, I make it a point to not read topics/notes
    	that I perceive to be of a more personal nature out of respect
    	for those writing. 
    
    						Regards,
    
    							Hank
    
    	re: the topic, as with other times when community opinions
    	have been requested, I shall abstain. This is after all, 
    	womannotes. 

Hank Modica:
>    	However, I make it a point to not read topics/notes
>    	that I perceive to be of a more personal nature out of respect
>    	for those writing. 
 
Really???

Why???

Do people really write things that they don't want people to read???
Why????

I can't understand why someone would write a note too personal to want
people to read.  And I can't understand how it is "respectful" to an author
to not read what she (or he) writes?

D!, very confused, who reads everything anyone writes in here of interest
    to her, so if you post something so personal you don't want anyone to
    know about it, you are outta luck

    
    Hi D!. 
    
    	Well, over the years, a lot of women have expressed that they'd
    like a somewhat safe place to discuss things that are very sensitive
    to them. Topics such as rape, incest, etc. seem to me to be subjects
    that may fit this catagory. As a male, and especially as a male with
    no experience or advice that I can offer on subjects as sensitive
    as these, I feel the most respectful thing I can do is to not
    read these. I also don't read FWO topics for much the same reason.
    I guess I feel that sometimes, the women here would rather share
    certain things with othert women only. I just try to respect those
    feelings and note accordingly. Admittedly no one ever knew that
    til now, but since Nancy asked, I thought I'd try to explain
    how I participate in wn. 
    
    
    							Regards
    
    								Hank

	re: .111 (Bonnie Randall Schutzman)

	>    Uh, I don't mean to send you into paranoia or anything, Nancy,
	>    but how do you know your supervisor DOESN'T read womannotes?

	{said in the voice of the Gestapo Major What's_his_name on
	 Hogan's Heroes}
    
		  "Ve have vays of knowing zese zhings."

	;-).  Actually, he might.  My manager... he might also.
	My manager's manager... he might also.  It's just a hunch
	that they don't, and I wouldn't mind it staying that way,
	even though they're pretty cool about stuff.

	I mean, in general I think it would be neat if they all did read
	=wn=, but I would be uncomfortable if I thought they knew 
	everything about me that I've written here.   If it were ever
	brought up in a conversation, I'm not sure how I'd react.  
	I hope that doesn't happen.  

	Also, I feel more vulnerable to someone who reads what I 
	write here, as it has been clearly illustrated to me that
	I can be manipulated easier by someone who knows my "hot
	buttons" than someone who doesn't.  Having that done in a 
	personal context is one thing; if it were to ever happen
	in a professional situation, I would be doubly outraged.
	{yea, I know, that's the risk I take... the tradeoff I make
	 in writing here to begin with}

	If a list were available of who has connected up to this 
	file in a given month, I would be aware of which people
	I associate with in a purely professional context that might
	know more about me than I would prefer, and thus who to be
	more aware of.  {and yes, I have no doubts whatsoever in my
	ability to recall which node and usernames were on the list 
	I were to run into them in a work situation some time in the 
	future.}

							nancy b.

    Thanks very much to everyone for the exceptionally clear :-) guidance. 
    
    WomanNotes will stay open.
    
    							=maggie

     got to agree with Bonnie's reply that the general image of womannotes
    is a notyesfiles not for males....
    
                     REK

    RE: mods' decision (per our vocal opinions, of course!)

Just out of curiosity, anyone know what the final yes/no tally was?

D!