Conference 7.286::digital

    In the conference closing announcement note that Mike Zaharee
    entered just before the entire file disappeared, it was stated
    that SOAPBOX was closed and would not return.  According to the
    note, the increasingly no-holds-barred style of late was considered
    (by whom?) to be of too great a liability to the Corporation.
    
    He also stated that a new general-topic conference would be
    started sometime next week, and that we should watch for
    announcements, but there was no additional information.
    
    No, DEC will never be the same.  Referencing your personal
    name, Davo, they're giving you (and all of us) a break.
    
    Chris

	Well, the first message left by Mike Zaharee was rather vague,
    but it seems that either I wasn't reading it very closely, or that
    he reentered another, somewhat more self-explanatory note in its
    place.  It would appear that Mike has taken the responsibility upon
    himself to rid the network of, as he says, "no-holds-barred" noting.

	I, for one, will go on record as saying that I am deeply saddened
    to see the Soapbox go.  It seemed that, although there was a bit of
    a problem recently amongst a couple of noters there concerning the
    meaning of the freedom of speech, that we were handling the situation
    pretty well and the problem would have eventually worked itself out as
    is the way things generally happen in the notesfiles.

	Anyway, apparently Mike didn't think so.  What I am unclear on is
    whether this is simply another Soapbox "reboot", or if it truly marks
    the end of an era (as Mike's note title would imply).  I have posted
    what remains of the Soapbox here to quell any rumors to the contrary.

				   -davo

p.s.	It's interesting to note here that I think that this is perhaps
	*the* longest note I have ever seen Mike Zaharee write... ;^)


            <<< BETHE::$DISK3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX_1988.NOTE;1 >>>
                                -< Soapbox '88 >-
================================================================================
Note 1.0                  The Great Experiment is over.               No replies
2B::ZAHAREE "Michael W. Zaharee"                     15 lines  10-JUN-1988 16:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current version of SOAPBOX has gotten out of hand.  The potential
    for problems as a result of "no-holds-barred" noting represents too
    great a risk for the company.  As such, SOAPBOX_1988 is closed and will
    not return.
    
    This action is pre-emptive on my part and not the result of any
    specific complaint (although I will be amazed if one does not show
    up).
    
    A general discussion notes conference will be opened up some time next
    week, however, it will have rules.
    
    Thank you for your patience,
    
    - Mike Zaharee

    I would rather not see "Soapbox" where did it go, why did it go,
    ect, here in this file.  I am going to let the first two replies
    to this topic stay, so that others will know, but am requesting
    that if you have questions, to please send them to the moderators
    of that conference, or the host of that conference.
    
    This topic will also be set /NOWRITE
    
    Gale Kleinberger
    co-moderator

             <<< TLE::PUBD$:[VAXNOTES]EASYNET_CONFERENCES.NOTE;9 >>>
                       -< EasyNet Conference Directory >-
================================================================================
Note 1281.3*                        Soapbox                               3 of 3
EVETPU::BURROWS "Jim Burrows"                        19 lines  13-JUN-1988 17:32
                          -< New SoapBox on DSSDEV:: >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A new version of SoapBox has opened as:
        
        	DSSDEV::SOAPBOX
        
        The intent of this conference is wide ranging and lively debate
        of an issues that are of interest to the noters. The conference
        operates only under those constraints necessitated by the fact
        that the conference is, in essence, a corporate document. This
        means that a modicum of decorum is necessary, and that while
        spirited debate is allowable, attacks on people and groups is
        not.
        
        This version may differ both from previous versions and from
        hearsay descriptions of previous versions, so please read all of
        note 1.* in the conference and use that as guide for what the
        conference is about rather than relying on any preconceived
        notions.
        
        JimB.

          <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note xxx.0             Dear Mr. Moderator - RE: Soapbox                  1 reply
PRAVDA::JACKSON "Every day is Halloween"             27 lines  14-JUN-1988 14:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr Moderator:
    
    Although I can sympathize with your reasons for not wanting the
    "where did Soapbox go" topic to come up here, I believe that this
    is a valid topic for this conference.  The people who work at Digital
    and use this conference for their answers on how the employees of
    the company interact deserve to hear the reasons (many of which
    I am familiar with) that the conference has disappeared and reopened
    in a much more restricted fashion.
    
    There has been discussions in this conference before about disappearing
    conferences, but No, not SOAPBOX.  I think the moderators saw the
    possibility of a large topic, and decided to squash it before it
    took off.  I also think this is beyond the mission of hte moderators
    of this conference.
    
    
    -bill
    
    PS.  I tried to reply to the more appropriate notes (ie: 1.* and
    the SOAPBOX note by Daveo, but they're write locked)
    
    Also, I think that this conference needs a "conference policy
    discussion" note.
    
    
    
================================================================================
Note xxx.1             Dear Mr. Moderator - RE: Soapbox                   1 of 1
NOVA::M_DAVIS "Honk if you love geeses..."            5 lines  14-JUN-1988 14:32
                                 -< go to 111 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before replying to this note, it is required that you read the complete
    contents of note 111.* in this conference.
    
    grins,
    Marge

    After some discussion between moderators this topic has been re-opened.
    Over the last few days the closing and re-opening of SOAPBOX has
    been discussed in a number of conferences (MODERATORS, WOMANNOTES,
    and others). Since the re-opening of SOAPBOX (at DSSDEV::SOAPBOX)
    much discussion has gone on there as well so it's not like the
    subject hasn't been discussed or is/was being covered up.
    
    			Alfred Thompson
    			co-moderator HUMAN::DIGITAL
    

    My understanding, I was not on the net last week, is that a
    'management' crisis developed in SOAPBOX last week. The moderators
    and other individuals involved were not able to resolve all issues
    between themselves. These issues 'overflowed' into several other
    conferences where many who were not familiar with the style and
    content of SOAPBOX were, how shall I say this, not pleased with
    what was going on.
    
    The host of SOAPBOX (who was not a moderator) had been looking
    for someone else to take over for some weeks anyway. As a result
    of all this SOAPBOX was closed by a former moderator with the
    assistance of the host and the support of a number of other Noters.
    No official (personnel, management, security, legal, etc) persons
    or actions were involved. Those involved in closing of SOAPBOX
    received permission from their own management to host a new version
    of SOAPBOX on DSSDEV.
    
    This new version is now open (you can use KP7 or SELECT to add it
    to your notebook). There is one major difference between the new
    and old SOAPBOX. The new has a number of pretty clearly designed
    and defined rules of behavior. There are a number of moderators
    who intent to enforce the rules to facilitate discussion and keep
    the Corporation out of trouble. Worthy goals in my estimation.
    
    This is how I understand the situation. Others more in the know
    please feel free to correct or expand. 
    
    		Alfred

  It's good to see this topic open again.  I voiced my concern about 
  write locking this topic and the subsequent locking of a new base note 
  asking why.  After corresponding to the moderators via VAXmail I don't 
  think I got a clear answer as to why it was locked.  I felt that the 
  topic was a valid subject for the DIGITAL conference.  I stated that 
  the note seemed to be in the spirit of the introductory note 1.13 and 
  in the spirit of the DIGITAL conference in general.  

  I realize now that the topic of the closing and reopening of SOAPBOX is 
  being discussed in great detail elsewhere, but at the time this topic was 
  locked there was no 'new' SOAPBOX only a closed 'old' SOAPBOX.  

  Was this a valid subject for the DIGITAL note conference?  Should moderators 
  be so quick in killing topics so long as they are not contrary to the 
  introductory note or noteing etiquette.

  At the risk of getting this topic totally off the original subject I'm 
  placing this in a new topic.  If you want to reply to this note do so via 
  note 552.  

  /Bob

    I was somewhat surprised by Gale's locking this note, considering
    that note 111 in this conference served as a focal point for
    discussions and information regarding a conference that was suddenly
    closed.  I am glad to see the topic re-opened.  But I echo the
    suggestion, probably made in jest, in an earlier reply that people
    should look through note 111 and see what happened before and what
    COULD happen again, if things get out of hand.  I applaud those
    who took the initiative to reformulate SOAPBOX into a conference
    that can serve the needs of more people in a manner that is less
    likely to get people in serious trouble.
    
    				Steve
    
    P.S.  Gale Kleinberger is a "Ms. Moderator".

    Some people seem to be overly depressed about sudden demise of their
    beloved SOAPBOX.  However, they seem to be quite adamant in pointing
    out that people affected by the elimination of the vanpool should
    not complain.  They even seem to advise that private vanpools should
    be started giving examples of how their relatives have done it in
    the past.
    
    May I remind those people that being able to contribute to SOAPBOX
    is not listed in the benefits book?  If indeed someone wanted to
    engage in the discussion about various current issues, surely they
    can use the commercial networks such as Compuserve.  They might
    have to pay for being able to flame.  
    
    Give me one good reason why you feel that DEC should eliminate the
    vanpools but should not touch the SOAPBOX.
    
    Obviously, this note is entered solely to point out that every one of
    us should show little compassion and not jump on the others when they
    are affected by any decision which digital or its employee might make.

    And please don't try to tell me how SOAPBOX is more important than the
    vanpools from *your* perspective, neither should you try to tell me how
    those two issues are completely unrelated.  I know they are.  I respect
    your prespective and I ask you to award the same privilege to others. 

- Vikas

    Vikas
    
    DEC did not eliminate SOAPBOX, but some person did decide to take
    the conference, change the rules and then open it as their own new
    soapbox conference.  Yes, the current host had asked for a new home,
    but that request (as far as I know) was for the conference to remain
    the same.
    
    If noone wanted to host it (and I know  that at least oneperson
    had voluntered to host it) then chainging the rules would have been
    fine.
    
    If some corporate representative  came to me and said "Bill, Digital
    has decided that the RED_SOX confernce is costing too much.  You
    must shut it down" I would do so.  I might try to find a new place
    for it where it didn't cost DEC  anything, but I'd obey the wishes
    of the pople who are paying for the service.  If Vikas Sonakke tells
    me that RED_SOX is a waste of resources, I'll promptly ignore him
    because he doesn't own the resources, and thus has no say in the
    matter (yea, you're probably a stockholder, but so am I, so until
    you could get the majority of the stockholders to tell me to get
    rid of it, it would stay)
    
    
    -bill

    RE: .11
    
    How does one identify a "corporate represenatative"?
    
    Is a corporate representative required to be an officer of the
    corporation, ie approved by the board of directors?
    Approved by a person approved by the board of directors?
    Approved by a person approved by a person approved by the
    board of directors?
    .
    .
    .
    The manager of a system? A notes moderator?

    I'd say that the person who is in charge of the decision being made.
    For instance, the person in charge of the Vanpool has obvioulsy
    had the approval of those above him/her to cancel it.  That decision
    came from "The corporation".
    
    If the owner of the system (cost center mgr), my boss, or someome
    from corporate security, corporate PR, or something like that said
    "Shut down RED_SOX", I'd do it.  They are the corporation.
    
    
    I don't think there is any real definition of the corporation that
    can be used always.  It's a fuzzy line at best.
    
    
    -bill

    I'm not sure where this is going now. For starters no one ordered
    anyone to close SOAPBOX down. The people responsible for the file
    (BETHEs system manager) was persuaded not ordered to assist. As far
    as I know the previous host has not objected to the new format.
    In fact an number of previous hosts and moderators are moderators
    of the current version.
    
    I know of no reason why someone who wanted to open a no-holds barred
    SOAPBOX style conference would be prevented before the fact from
    opening such a file. At least I know of no official policy or
    decree. Obviously that person would be taking the risk that the
    file might get out of control and that at some point it might
    get to the point where it was harmful to the Corporation. 
    
    It is my understanding that the old SOAPBOX was getting to that
    point. There is only so much name calling, foul language and personal
    attacks that can go on before official action is required. I don't
    think it is a good idea to let things get that out of control.

    The important point to me is that people saw a problem and took
    steps to correct it. They did not go to 'management' to solve it
    but did it themselves. As things stand today, if you disagree with
    their actions you can complain about it (in SOAPBOX or by mail
    preferably), you can ignore it, or you can open your own conference.
    If official action had been forced into happening you would probably
    be limited to ignoring it as your only option.
    
    			Alfred    
    

================================================================================
Note 556.0                          SOAPBOX?                          No replies
WR2FOR::BOUCHARD_KE "Ken Bouchard WRO3-2 DTN 521-301" 4 lines  20-JUN-1988 20:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Did anyone read the rules of the new SOAPBOX? Give me a break! You
    can't write that Noriega is a dope smuggling jerk who was indicted
    by a US court.(I just broke the first three rules) Why even bother
    creating that notesfile? 

    The rules of the new Soapbox have been exhaustively "discussed" in 
    Soapbox. I would hate to see the discussion infecting other 
    conferences. Why didn't you ask your carefully reasoned question 
    there? 

    Have you tried entering a note that you are serious about to see
    what will happen? And I don't mean to suggest that you enter one
    just to test the rules.

There *does* seem to be a real problem with Soapbox.

For example, a copy of a letter which appeared in the New York Times (posted
by the author of the letter) discussing the plight of the author's uncle was
deemed "not in Digital's interests" since it might affect our ability to do
business in Singapore.

/john

    (At the risk of starting something :-):
    
    I don't think that HUMAN::DIGITAL should allow discussions of
    conferences that are inappropriate within the relevant conference.
    Otherwise, this would just become a place to avoid the rules of
    various conferences.
    
    Also, I don't think that HUMAN::DIGITAL should allow quotes or
    pseudo-quotes that if unquoted would be banned. Otherwise, this would
    just become a thinly disguised way of avoiding rules.
    
    To generate a totally spurious example:
    
    I would ban the following here:
    
    	if conference FOO has a rule banning the word BARF, then
    	HUMAN::DIGITAL should not be a place to discuss BARFing in
    	the conference FOO.
    
    	And in this example, HUMAN::DIGITAL should not allow statements
    	such as:
    		I wouldn't say that BARFing should be discussed in FOO.

    I see the reasoning in that, but doesn't that make it a bit
    hard to have a meta-discussion in HUMAN::Digital about
    whether BARFing should be discussed at all in FOO?
    
    How (or where) does one have that meta-discussion?

        AT&T could set up a conference call. Or even more old fashioned
        you could try to meet face to face.

        There is a lot to be said for the art of conversation where
        voice inflection, expression, and body language are a part.

        Don't get me wrong, I think the Digital network way of
        communicating through Notes and MAIL and shared files is the
        greatest. But, when you are discussing a charged topic using
        super-charged words, you can't bring any of the above into
        play.

        How's this? ;^) Is that a smile and a wink or is he Chinese?

    Owen Wisters "The Virginian" is the source of the quote, "When you call
    me that, smile." The notes equivalent all to often seems to be to say
    something strong, perhaps using "fighting words," and then stick a
    smiley-face icon at the end. I simply don't believe a smiley face
    compensates for nasty words. 

re:.20

>>    I see the reasoning in that, but doesn't that make it a bit
>>    hard to have a meta-discussion in HUMAN::Digital about
>>    whether BARFing should be discussed at all in FOO?
    
>>    How (or where) does one have that meta-discussion?

    Is is appropriate to declare this topic a rat-hole?
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    I think we should discuss the fact that we can have a conference
    topic that progresses along these lines at all.  It truely seems
    to have become the Digital Style of Working.
    
    Alice
    

Re .18:

The situation is no more "a real problem with SOAPBOX" than the fact that some
people spell "ALL-IN-1" as "All-In-One" (and other people flame them for it) is
"a real problem with MARKETING" (the VAX Notes conference, not the department).

Many employees (including myself) are insufficiently aware of the various
strictures on freedom of expression and transborder data flow in some of the
locales where we do business and have Enet connections.  Certainly the topic
doesn't attract the same sort of constructive guidance which things like rules
regarding the discussion of unannounced products seem to.  And it is just as
important that we know how to do the right thing.  From the knowledge of
networks and Europe (particularly Germany) which you have displayed in the past,
I would not be surprised if you were more cognizant of these issues than many
others, John.

It would be quite appropriate to the purposes of this conference if employees
gained a greater appreciation of these issues from a discussion here. After all,
they relate quite strongly to "the way we work at Digital". However, I think it
would be improper to discuss specific incidents relating to our company or
colleagues here, or anywhere else for that matter.

It's an issue worthy of its own topic here, anyhow.
				/AHM

    When she arrive at this point Alice, glanced over at a pair of
    identical twins standing on what appeared to be the container from
    bars of cleansing material.  Each was waving what seemed to be totally
    identical sheets of paper upon which were printed completely opposite
    aspects of an arguement.
    
    As Alice looked through page upon page of rat hole oriented nonsense,
    glaring up at her was a specific dicussion that pleaded over and over
    "Lock me! Lock Me!"   Alice properly wondered if this was more a job
    for a moderator than herself and desperatly began to search for one. 
    
    
   

    I for one am really pissed off that the old SOAPBOX closed and a
    new sanitized one opened up. I was all for the old SOAPBOX, it kept
    all the drivel in one place. Unfortunately it now seems that the
    drivellers have moved into other conferences such as this one.
    
    Dave

    .27: Great stuff! Have you thought about joining the "Dark and stormy
    night..." event in VISA::JOYOFLEX?
    
    .28: Is it possible to set up a write-only conference where drivelers
    can post whatever they want without fear of offending anyone ;-)
    
    Bruce (hat in pocket for now)

Good Idea!  Lets make this one write only!  8-)

       Note 1281.9 in EASYNET_CONFERENCES seems to be saying that the
    'box is out of service once again. Does anyone have any details?
                                                          Denny
    

    Keep reading, Denny.  1281.11 in that same conference explains the
    hardware problems...field service called.

It's back again.  However, its owner will be at Decus next week, so if
it crashes again, you'll have to wait for his return.

Martin Minow
co-moderator, Soapbox

    What happened to the Box?  

    My understanding is that SOAPBOX was on borrowed time (literally)
    for a while. It was being hosted on a small system that was borrowed
    while someone was away from work for an extended period. That person
    and the system that hosted SOAPBOX are both now back hard at work
    doing a real job. Unless someone finds a system to host it, SOAPBOX
    will stay closed for a while.

    Be aware that SOAPBOX takes a large amount of disk space but even
    more in network overhead. 30 or more simultaneous accessers is
    common and even more would be there if the host system could handle
    it. Few systems doing real work can take the overhead of SOAPBOX
    with out adversely affecting peoples productivity.

    		Alfred

    It's not as if there wasn't any attempt to keep it going.  I was
    told that there were at least four possibilities for a replacement
    of RAHAB (SoapBox's last home) but they all fell through.  One of
    those four were mine.  I don't know about the three other cases,
    but I couldn't really go to bat for a cause for the "greater good"
    of Digital employees.  In other words, it's tough to justify the
    use of a given cost center's equipment for something like SoapBox.
    
  --Simon
    

I don't know, since I don't deal with those in charge of the system,
but it COULD be that the system maintainer was out of town for the
extended holiday, and the DECnet license expired at midnight 31-dec.

This happened here, it could happen elsewhere.  Notice the last use
of the 'box was 31-dec.

just an idea.

/harv

	RE: .37 It is definitly not a matter of a DECnet licence. The
	hardware is not there.

			Alfred

        Rumor control:  Unless you have factual knowledge to share,
        please don't post speculations such as .37, which doesn't add
        useful information.
        
        Since the SOAPBOX is currently without a home, people who are
        willing to offer to host it should contact its last keeper.
        
        Information on the status of the conference will be posted (as it
        should be) in topic 1281 of TURRIS::EASYNET_CONFERENCES.  Please
        READ the notes in that topic before you WRITE anything. 
        
        While it may be appropriate to discuss here the implications of
        the lack of a SOAPBOX on how we work at Digital, this is not the
        appropriate forum for "what happened to SOAPBOX" or "why can't I
        access SOAPBOX" questions, unless the moderators/ keepers of
        SOAPBOX wish to participate. 
        
        Thank you for your cooperation.  It will prevent the need to
        "write lock" this topic.
        
        Tom