| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 629.1 | let's discuss it | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom,293-5358,VAX&MIPS Architecture | Sun Oct 09 1988 21:48 | 22 |
| I am the person who cross posted the note from WAR_STORY to this
conference. The note I cross posted is the beginning of the "Privacy:
what files can I read?" topic. I do not mind the specific details being
discussed here.
When I did the cross posting, I was operating under the assumption that
moving a note from one public notes conference to another was harmless.
In particular, the WAR_STORY conference seems "more public" than most
in that it isn't obviously for a group with narrowly expressed
interests.
I would not post somebody's mail in any conference without first asking
or otherwise being *very* certain that the author would not object.
Similarly, I would not copy a note from a restricted conference to any
place else without getting permission.
Since I did the copying, there have been a few comments in various
places that some people don't like it done. What that means is I'll
have to exercise even more care in the future, particularly with notes
by people I don't know. Doing it "by reference" does seem safer: the
person can delete the source note, while he can't delete the copy. Are
there problems with cross references?
|
| 629.2 | Etiquette conference | ATLAST::LAMPSON | The ugly baby goes international | Sun Oct 09 1988 23:17 | 5 |
| This topic really belongs in HUMAN::ETIQUETTE (KP7). I believe
there are already some discussions of this very topic already
there.
_Mike
|
| 629.3 | Not strictly an "etiquette" question | DR::BLINN | Round up the usual gang of suspects | Mon Oct 10 1988 10:27 | 37 |
| Ah, but it's not just an ETIQUETTE question, and it does relate
to the "Digital way of working".
In my opinion, anything anyone writes in a conference that doesn't
have any access restrictions (beyond the obvious one of having
access to NOTES and the EASYnet) is fair game for redistribution.
If you don't want it read by people you can't anticipate, then
don't post it in a conference. HOWEVER, if the author chooses to
delete the original posting, and knows that it has been cross-
posted elsewhere, and asks the person who cross-posted it to
either delete it or remove all indentification of the original
author, then common courtesy (we're talking etiquette, now, not
formal or contractual obligation) suggests that the person who
cross-posted the material should comply with the original author's
wishes. Similarly, if the cross-poster comes to realize that the
author has deleted the original posting, it would be courteous to
ask the author whether he or she wants the cross-posting deleted
as well.
Regarding MAIL, if something has been widely redistributed within
Digital, and the original author hasn't complained in a follow-up
message, then it's fair game for cross-posting in NOTES. HOWEVER,
if the original author complains about the NOTES postings, then
once again common courtesy requires that the person who did the
cross-posting should either delete the material or make its source
unidentifiable (depending on what the original author requests).
On the other hand, for MAIL that has not been widely distributed
and for which it's unclear if the original author intended wide
distribution, common courtesy (and good business sense) requires
that the authors permission be sought before putting it on what
amounts to a "bulletin board".
These are my opinions, and the guidelines I personally apply to my
use of NOTES and MAIL.
Tom
|
| 629.4 | | ALIEN::MELVIN | Ten Zero, Eleven Zero Zero by Zero 2 | Mon Oct 10 1988 13:55 | 12 |
| It seems that the original posting is posted with a specific context in mind,
i.e. the conference where it is posted. It is also in the context of other
notes in that conference. Cross posting does not always carry over this
context. It is the author of the posting who should have the say, beforehand,
as to whether the new conference is an appropriate place. After it, it is
the author's name on it and that dictates some responsibilty for the content,
whether someone else did the cross posting. If it is good enough to cross
post, it should be no problem in asking the author beforehand. It can only
help.
-Joe
|
| 629.5 | | CHUCKM::MURRAY | Chuck Murray | Mon Oct 10 1988 18:02 | 31 |
| I agree with Joe (.4). When I write something for a Notes
conference, I'm writing for a particular *audience*, and
that influences the points I bring up, the organization of
the material, the language I choose, etc. -- probably in
mostly subtle ways, but the influence is there. What I create
when I write something is a statement for a specific context
(audience, time, and usually preceding notes and replies on
the same topic). In fact, I might not want my comments
posted in other conferences, and I think I'm entitled to be
consulted first if someone wants to assume otherwise.
I do not have any problem, though, with someone in another
conference saying: "Hey, Chuck Murray posted Note nn.n in
the XZY conferened on topic ABC. Check it out." In this case,
someone "checking it out" would have to enter the context of
the particular conference, and would see my words exactly as
I wrote them and perhaps modified them later (or wouldn't see
my words because I changed my mind and deleted or "hid" the note).
I'm aware that posting a note subjects my expression to the
potential scrutiny of every Tom, Dick, and Harry (and Jane,
Joan, and Sally) within DIGITAL -- I just want to be sure they're
seeing it where I wrote it and as I ultimately wanted it to be.
To use an analogy... If I post cartoons or sayings outside my
office, I'm opening myself to every passer-by seeing them and
making judgments about me. That's fine. What would not be fine,
though, is for someone - without my permission - to make photocopies
of these cartoons or sayings and send them to random or selected
outsiders with the notation "This is what Chuck Murray has outside
his office." (P.S. You're all welcome to stop by my office and
see my cartoons!)
|
| 629.6 | No attack on TOM | KBOMFG::POST | Veni Vedi Vinci | Mon Oct 10 1988 19:08 | 57 |
| RE: < Note 629.1 by EAGLE1::EGGERS "Tom,293-5358,VAX&MIPS Architecture" >
-< let's discuss it >-
>> When I did the cross posting, I was operating under the assumption that
>> moving a note from one public notes conference to another was harmless.
>> In particular, the WAR_STORY conference seems "more public" than most
>> in that it isn't obviously for a group with narrowly expressed
>> interests.
Tom: I by no means intend to accuse you of doing me wrong. We have discussed
the original note off-line by VAXmail and I believe you understood why
I wanted to delete it after the heavy reaction in the TAMARA::WAR_STORY
notesfile. As matter of fact after you notified me of the cross posting
I actively followed the debate and very much respect you for your posted
opinion.
There was some brief exchanges of mails between myself and other WAR_STORY
members, which was very much on the border of professionalism.
>> I would not post somebody's mail in any conference without first asking
>> or otherwise being *very* certain that the author would not object.
What I would like to discuss here is whether the author of a NOTE should be
contacted before a cross-posting is done and whether the author of the
original note has the right to have the cross posted note deleted.
In my particular case, the note in WAR_STORY was meant as a harmless story
of how not to use a VAX. I was quite embarassed at the heavy reaction to such
a simple note (especially the nastygrams that I received). The nastygrams were
quite heavy - One person even threatened me!
When I wanted to answer my own note and explain how harmless everything had
been, I was surprised that the note had been write protected.
Then I wanted to have it deleted, butwas told that would not be very
effective as it had been cross posted in HUMAN::DIGITAL and that as I was not
the author of my own note, I could not have it deleted in HUMAN::DIGITAL.
This was really a FAIT ACCOMPLI (finished act), and what more could I do but
give my belated consent? At least after 150 responses, I finally could tell
all the readers what I was doing.
Someone mentioned that he thought this conference belonged in ETIQUETTE.
I do not know about the rest of the readers, but I find it bothersome to
have to fill my notebook with all sorts of conferences that I never otherwise
would be interested in, just to see the reply to my note. Why not just let
it be up to the moderators to decide if the note belongs in a conference or not.
I've said alot. Tom, I again want to emphasize that although you brought
me at first in an uncomfortable position, I am GLAD you have cross-posted
the original note and am glad that it generated such a lively discussion. I also
have HIGH RESPECT FOR YOUR PROFESSIONALISM AND YOUR IDEAS ABOUT COMPUTING.
Victor
|
| 629.7 | no problem | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom,293-5358,VAX&MIPS Architecture | Mon Oct 10 1988 21:14 | 22 |
| And I didn't feel accused. I posted my .1 note to make it clear to
everybody that both "sides" were welcoming the discussion.
The various discussions brought on by this incident have raised my
awareness. That applies both to the file-privacy issue and to this
cross-posting issue. I was generally aware of the issues involved, and
I took them into account. But what I missed was the strength of the
"don't do it" opinions, even though the strongest ones don't seem to be
large in numbers. Many of the strongest ones are reasonably thought
out and expressed, not just flames.
What I'm now trying to sort out is where to draw the (new) line.
Somehow the "reasonable man" theory should apply. Asking permission
everytime I want to spread some information seems like it defeats a
significant purpose of notes. But short of asking the author on each
and every cross posting, I know of no way to avoid offending somebody.
Some will conclude that therefore I should ask every time. I'm still
reluctant to do that because of the effort and delay involved.
My current plan, it may change tomorrow, is to ask the author when I
don't know him, and to take my usual care when I do. Cross references
from an open conference still seem to be legitimate.
|
| 629.8 | one opinion | CVG::THOMPSON | Grump grump grump | Mon Oct 10 1988 22:05 | 19 |
| My own opinions are:
Never post mail messages or notes from restricted conferences with
out clear permission. Mail messages with huge distribution lists
are judged on a case by case basis.
Notes posted in an open conference are fair game. If someone shouts
from the roof tops I can't see how they can reasonably ask passers
by not to tell people what they've heard. Posting in an open conference
is shouting from the roof tops. One does have an obligation to give
as much context as reasonable and to properly quote people though.
This discussion *does* belong in ETIQUETTE rather then here. As
I am taking the next few days off I'm not about to write lock it
but I would urge people to take it to the 'right' place. Adding a
conference to a notebook for a few days and then deleting it is
a very simple matter.
Alfred
|
| 629.9 | | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom,293-5358,VAX&MIPS Architecture | Mon Oct 10 1988 22:52 | 2 |
| Well, I'm not going to copy the notes over there. If somebody
else wants to ...
|
| 629.10 | Notes etiquette vs. file privacy: why different? | STAR::ROBERT | | Tue Oct 11 1988 08:21 | 92 |
| Please don't write lock this.
I think that this discussion is very connected with "what files
can I read?". They both include elements of privacy, intent,
technology, and use. And they both involve work-related and
non-work related data. To the extent that judgement, professionalism,
and (for lack of a better word) ethics is involved it is part
of the Digital Way of Working.
Perhaps folks who read my strong pro-privacy position on browsing
files will find it strange that I generally promote a generous
attitude towards cross postings of notes. Here's why:
File protections are tricky things, requiring some
level of technical understanding, subject to errors
by owner or system manager, and subordinate to directory
structure.
File protections are for computers not people. When
they can be competently and easily understood by your
average 15 year old, I'll consider treating them as
a reliable/appropriate part of human "custom".
Conferences are inherently a broadcast medium. True,
they can be restricted to a single individual but
that is rare. Only the "range" of the broadcast
is limited (either by membership or policy).
Conferences can usually be identified as work-related
or not externally. Files frequently can't. Conference
membership and access, when regulated, is usually done
so by someone presumed skilled in the art. Files are
often managed by people unskilled at OS security features.
An unrestricted conference is unrestricted. A directory
named SYS$PUBLIC is presumed intended to be open to more
than one person. A personal directory does not carry
that intention (regardless of protection). All of this
is less ambiguous and less technical for conferences than
it is for the multiple OS and file system security features
we use.
I believe the higher level concepts of conferences and public
directories CAN be understood by the average 15 year old, but
not the arcane security features of operating and file systems.
When I say "average" I mean NON-technically sophisticated users.
Consequently:
Unrestricted conferences:
I consider things in unrestricted NON-work conferences
to be generally fair game. But don't much care for
cross-posting out of some sense of ettiquite [sp]. I
oppose making author-identified verbatim information
available to non-digital employees. (Sharing the
general sense of the information is usually fine).
I treat unrestricted WORK-related conferences almost
exactly like DEC internal publications. These are
article for "attributed, general publication". However,
since people forget that (or don't know, or don't agree
with me) I'll hesitate if I think that the transfer of
such material might reflect badly on the author or cause
some other problem.
Restricted conferences:
Information in restricted NON-work conferences (aka valuing
differences) should be treated with sensitivity.
Information in restricted WORK-related conferences I treat
by almost the identical rules I treat all work-related
mail sent to me. But I take the fact that it was
posted in a conference to usually imply that it can
be shared with the entire team that has a need to know
about that general topic. Mail might be a personal
or one-on-one comment and I judge that on tone and
content.
Rule number one remains, "use your good judgement and if unsure ASK".
In the specific case of the note that was cross posted to this
conference I would recommend (hindsight is great) that it could
have been posted with author's name deleted, and a cross pointer
to the original. That would have preserved the original author's
ability to become anonymous by deleting the original, without the
silliness of having readers here have to jump to WAR_STORY, read
the (possibly deleted) content, then come back here to discuss it.
- greg
|
| 629.11 | I beg to differ! | UCOUNT::BAILEY | Corporate Sleuth | Tue Oct 11 1988 18:03 | 25 |
| I hate to say this, but this is probably REALLY an issue for *legal*,
because...
The author of published material holds the copyright to that material
unless the copyright has been specifically transferred.
Electronic publishing (mail, notes, etc.) is, legally, publishing.
Copyright is not a royalties-only issue -- it is ownership of the
words and where they are used, and how they are used.
Therefore, if you copy MY note or MY mail message without permission,
direct or implied (and that's the definition needed from legal --
implied permission) you are in violation of copyright law. Illegal
practices are prohibited by DEC culture and Notes regulation, and
therefore, regardless of everyone's opinions and personal logic,
inappropriate. OK, so lawsuit is VERY unlikely unless you get me
fired for the action...it's still illegal and unethical.
Moral: Just ask the author to do the posting, or give pointers,
or forget it!
And that's MY opinion!!! :^)
Sherry
|
| 629.12 | But is it "fair use"? | DR::BLINN | No abusing the abos if anyone is looking | Tue Oct 11 1988 18:22 | 11 |
| Ah, but... Sherry, I'm sure you're also at least familiar (if not
intimately so) with such related concepts as the "fair use"
doctrine. And of course, there is the question of whether Digital
owns the rights, or they belong to the individual (since, after
all, each of us is in the employ of Digital Equipment Corporation,
and much of what we produce is "work-related"). Of course,
you're right that an opinion from "Legal" might help clarify
the matter..
Tom
|
| 629.13 | not copyrighted | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom,293-5358,VAX&MIPS Architecture | Tue Oct 11 1988 18:23 | 12 |
| 1. There is no claim to intellectual property unless the claim is both
asserted and defended. Putting a statement in that says, "Copyright,
1988, by your_name", is a sufficient assertion. Without that assertion,
there is no copyright. That's my understanding from Digital lawyers.
2. I believe when you joined Digital, you signed an employee agreement
that assigns all your work to Digital. We can argue whether or not that
applies to non-business-related notes posted on equipment owned by
Digital.
I do not believe the copyright laws can be correctly used to prevent
the copying of notes.
|
| 629.14 | I second Greg's reply | KBOMFG::POST | Veni Vedi Vinci | Wed Oct 12 1988 16:27 | 22 |
| I also do not believe it is a matter of copyright violation. Tom and Greg
have both made clear distinctions as to what may be cross posted. Both
have clearly stated that notes in RESTRICTED CONFERENCES should not be
cross-posted. As far as I know this is also against corporate policy.
Notes in a public conference should be "free-game". I very much welcomed
Greg's idea of posting it anonomously with a pointer to the original note.
Day before yesterday, I received via Email a note which was posted in a public
notes conference. The note was all about SYSTEM INDUSTRIES and the problems that
a customer had with the SI93c. While the content of the note was of general
interest, it is totally irrelevant as to WHO wrote the note.
What is the consensus of cross-porting a note from a public conference and
making it an anonomous note, unless you are acquainted with the author?
Alfred, you do have my permission to cross post this note into ETIQUETTE, but
please don't write protect this note.
Victor
|
| 629.15 | don't use the P word! | XANADU::FLEISCHER | Bob, DTN 381-0895, ZKO3-2/T63, BOSE A/D | Wed Oct 12 1988 17:01 | 4 |
| re Note 629.14 by KBOMFG::POST:
> Notes in a public conference should be "free-game".
^^^^^^
|
| 629.16 | don't lose the source | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom,293-5358,VAX&MIPS Architecture | Wed Oct 12 1988 17:08 | 10 |
| I my first reaction to .14 is to wonder how I could possibly get more
information if the source is omitted. If the text of the note contains
a source, a magazine reference for example, then people on intermediate
distribution, such as the poster, might be left out. If the note exists
nowhere except in the public notes conference, and it was authored by
the poster, then deleting the name would preclude asking questions.
In an employee interest conference, that might be OK, even if
inconvenient to somebody. In a business conference, deleting the source
sounds like a very bad idea.
|
| 629.17 | I still disagree! | UCOUNT::BAILEY | Corporate Sleuth | Wed Oct 12 1988 17:20 | 22 |
| Hi, Tom et al!
"Fair use" applies to certain (small) portions of any total work,
mainly. Copyright notation is useful, but it is NOT necessary for
copyright protection -- prior publication is necessary, even if
that is done in some unorthodox manner.
I stand by my opinion that it's basically wrong to use another's
words without their permission. Too much of our society in general
and DEC society (as opposed to official "DEC Culture") is based
on the "docterine" of what you can get away with. "Fair GAME" may
be an active principle, but it's an ethical and legal nonentity.
I've seen the "hacker mentality" argued in this file and others,
and I'm constantly amazed at the lack of personal responsibility
and courtesy so many people have for the privacy and electronic
possessions of others. If I want my words and files distributed
or posted, it "should" be my decision to do so, and nobody else's.
OK, I'll stop now, or go to SOAPBOX!
Sherry
|
| 629.18 | almost offensive | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom,293-5358,VAX&MIPS Architecture | Wed Oct 12 1988 17:50 | 32 |
| Re .17:
>> Copyright notation is useful, but it is NOT necessary for
>> copyright protection ...
It is necessary. I checked with an intellectual property DEC lawyer
about two hours ago on this very point. You absolutely MUST do
something to stake a claim. No claim, no rights. With the copyright
statement, you can go to court and get an injunction to stop somebody
from copying your work. If you intend to sue for damages, then you must
"perfect" your claim by registering the work with the Library of
Congress. But if you don't stake a claim, then you can't do anything.
>> I've seen the "hacker mentality" argued in this file and others,
>> and I'm constantly amazed at the lack of personal responsibility
>> and courtesy so many people have for the privacy and electronic
>> possessions of others.
There may be some way to interpret "hacker mentality" in that comment
in a positive manner, but I don't know what it is. I think I'm
offended. Similarly for "lack of personal responsibility". I don't
think either of those comments would stand up to a close examination
under Digital's Valuing Differences policies. I'm willing to assume you
have strong and well-reasoned opinions on the subject, and that you are
trying to "do the right thing". Please grant me the same assumption.
>> If I want my words and files distributed or posted, it "should" be my
>> decision to do so, and nobody else's.
One thing you can always do is to add a note saying, "Please don't
distribute or post this." That would make things perfectly clear. I
doubt there are many people who would violate the request.
|
| 629.19 | | ALIEN::MELVIN | Ten Zero, Eleven Zero Zero by Zero 2 | Wed Oct 12 1988 17:55 | 24 |
| >notes conference. The note was all about SYSTEM INDUSTRIES and the problems that
>a customer had with the SI93c. While the content of the note was of general
>interest, it is totally irrelevant as to WHO wrote the note.
if that note had to be used in litigation of any sort, you can bet the name on
the note would take on great significance.
>What is the consensus of cross-porting a note from a public conference and
>making it an anonomous note, unless you are acquainted with the author?
One "No". There always seems to be the catch phrase "unless you know the
author". What difference should that make? An anonymous note still is
something taken out of the original context. Since there are duplicate user
names throughout this network, who posted what and when/where would get very
confusing. And what if the note to be cross posted has more information in it
than desired by the cross poster? Should they be allowed to 'cut and paste'
as they want to?
For all the typing that is going on concerning this, what is so difficult about
getting permission from the author? No one yet has given a reason as to why
it should not be done. The number of cases would be small, the need even less,
and the time to get the permission even less still.
-Joe
|
| 629.20 | Not everyone is as responsive as you or I | DR::BLINN | Wherever you go, there you are | Wed Oct 12 1988 18:43 | 7 |
| Joe, I wish it were true that everyone at Digital is as responsive
to requests for information, for permission to redistribute, and
so forth as you and I. Some people in this company NEVER read
their electronic mail, for example. Other people don't return
phone calls. And so on...
Tom
|
| 629.21 | | STAR::ROBERT | | Thu Oct 13 1988 14:54 | 60 |
| re: .14
> I also do not believe it is a matter of copyright violation. Tom and Greg
> have both made clear distinctions as to what may be cross posted. Both
> have clearly stated that notes in RESTRICTED CONFERENCES should not be
> cross-posted. As far as I know this is also against corporate policy.
We partially agree but I didn't quite say that. I said that I treat
information in work-related restricted conferences pretty much the
same way I treat electronic business mail with the addition that posting
in a conference implies "team distribution".
Thus if I believe the audiences in two different restricted conferences
largely intersect, I feel free to cross post.
re: why not just ask, is is hard/frequent?
Yes. Yes.
A significant part of my job is information transfer. It would be a
real pain if I had to ask everytime I wanted to forward or cross-post
mail or notes.
Examples:
A field person criticises (or praises) a technical feature
in a product I'm associated with. If it contains useful
information I'll forward it to a development manager,
probably with the author identified, possibly not.
Information in a restricted conference on a hardware
problem is related to a discussion in another conference
focusing on something similar related to software: zipppppp
etc.
In short:
Communications related to personnel, legal, and non-work
related activites get treated one way, with great respect
for personal privacy and personal interests/ownership.
Communications related to work/products/technology etc.,
get treated carefully in that if they contain sensitive
information it should be limited to those with a need-to-know,
but they are basically DEC property and can generally
be forwarded either with or without attribution.
Naturally and obviously it is always wrong to claim credit
for someone else's work. If a name is removed for _that_
purpose it is wrong.
But it is no more necessary to carry a name with words than
it is to insert a "byline" everytime you copy code from
one module to another. "Business words" and "code" are,
to me, more or less the same thing --- structured work
from individual contributors which is sometimes identified,
and sometimes not.
- greg
|
| 629.22 | Trying again! | UCOUNT::BAILEY | Corporate Sleuth | Thu Oct 13 1988 17:40 | 37 |
| re: .18
Sorry to agitate you about my "hacker-mentality" remark. When I
say hacker (and my significant other is a whiz-kid programmer, so
I'm careful how I use it!), I'm using the term in the public sense
of the word, which is to describe the kind of programmer/computer
"nerd" who breaks into systems for fun, sends viral messages into
the network, and generally acts in an irresponsible way using technical
skills/expertise. I think, frankly, that there are some of those
in DEC, and they just do not care about anyone's privacy or anyone's
rights (legal or moral) except their own as they define them.
As for a lack of "personal responsibility", robbing a bank is stealing,
taking home equipment without authorization is stealing, removing
a tray from the cafeteria (an independent sub-contractor) and not
returning it is stealing -- just because you can fairly easily get
away with the latter doe NOT make it right. Just because you can
get away with poking about in my directory under certain conditions
doe not make THAT right. Responsible people ASK PERMISSION in grey
areas.
re: .20
I think you should refrain from posting anything that you cannot
get permission to post, for whatever reason. So some people don't
respond -- give a pointer to the file where the message is already
available, or very briefly summarize their message or just let it
go. I realize that many people wouldn't care what you do with their
words. I know a lot, however, who reserve the option of deleting
Notes postings, and who consider E-Mail as "private" as US Mail.
Your assumptions shouldn't forget to consider their assumptions
about the disposition of their words.
There is a difference between the intent of written words and the
intent of modular code.
Sherry
|
| 629.23 | | STAR::ROBERT | | Fri Oct 14 1988 10:13 | 48 |
| re: .22
It troubles me to hear that you feel that way, though I would certainly
respect your wishes with respect to your own words.
But I've never ever had anyone complain about my forwarding mail or
notes, nor do I wish to impose such restrictions upon others.
When we work, we work as part of a shared enterprise, and the overwhelming
portion of our work belongs to Digital, not ourselves. As long as we act
in the company/shareholders/customers interests we are usually doing the
right thing.
Since I receive about 100 mail messages per day, and read perhaps 2-300
notes, and forward from 10-20% of those to others it would really be
impractical to operate under a general "explicit forwarding permission
required" default rule; it would impair my effectiveness and lessen
the company's ability to respond quickly and effectively.
The generaly free forwarding of business communications has been the
default at the five or more companies I've worked at.
Personal and private communications, non-work related conferences, and
some other material is one thing, but day-to-day work correspondence
is another.
Suppose someone writes me and asks, "what's the right way to code
this LMF call?" and I reply, "module 17, line 15, movl r0,r1". I
don't have any problem with them forwarding that to the owner of
module 17, or, for that matter, posting my reply in their development
conference without expliciting asking me (in fact I'd rather they
didn't add to my mail with such a request).
Why would you expect that such a mundane communication would be
treated as privileged? Why should I expect that my words would
be treated with such reverance when I'm merely doing my job and
providing a consulting service?
I'll wager a guess that 90% of all forwarded business communications
within Digital are done so without explicit permission; it would be
quite an uphill battle to change this default. Is it possible for
you to qualify your position to allow this to continue by narrowing
the scope of material you feel requires permission to forward?
(Posting in a conference is the same as forwarding to a distribution
list as far as I can tell).
- greg
|
| 629.25 | you may forward my notes | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom,293-5358,VAX&MIPS Architecture | Fri Oct 14 1988 12:07 | 24 |
| My volume of mail and notes isn't anywhere near as high as Greg
described on .23. Nevertheless, I forward and copy business mail quite
freely without asking. I do look at it carefully and apply the
"reasonable man" theory: would a reasonable man at Digital object to
this message being sent to others? I can't ever recall having someone
object, even when I post the message for all to see. I do scrupiously
honor, "Do not forward or post," requests.
I really was quite surprised to find I had given the author of .0 any
problem at all. ("Problem" is probably not the right word.) It made me
think quite a bit about my forwarding practises. I will probably be a
bit more careful from now on, but I don't intend to change those
practises (at least not until I hear much stronger reasons and a larger
group of people opposed). And I expect my messages to be treated
similarly: they will be forwarded and posted unless I include a "Please
don't" message. Since I know forwarding may happen, I write them
accordingly. (Actually, I sometimes wish everybody wrote them assuming
they would be forwarded!)
And to be explicit about it, I hereby give permission for anybody to
cross post or mail any note of mine in a non-restricted conference to
anyplace in Digital.
(signed) Thomas W. Eggers
|
| 629.26 | more information? | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom,293-5358,VAX&MIPS Architecture | Fri Oct 14 1988 12:19 | 11 |
| Re: .24
Marge, what was the upshot? Was the person told it was against Digital
policy? Don't forward or post any messages? Or just Ken's? Or was it
part of another investigation, and security was merely trying to
determine the general information flow?
I think there must be some more relevant information to your .24
comment. On far more than one occasion, people have gotten overly
zealous in trying to protect what they (perhaps incorrectly) perceive
to be Ken's interests. Or did Ken initiate that one himself?
|
| 629.27 | | DELPHI::ROBERT | | Fri Oct 14 1988 12:34 | 31 |
| re: .24
Thanks Marge.
I think unless a KO memo specifically said "To all employees" I wouldn't
assume it was ok to post in an unrestricted conference regardless of
how "worldwide" the distribution appeared. And since it's not clear to
me whether this conference is work-related or not, I probably wouldn't
post it here period.
But if I had been the person you referred to, my first question to personnel
would be "has Ken expressed his opinion on this incident?" and if they
didn't have a good answer I would have concluded the meeting. (Do I
recollect correctly that because of several incidents there actually
is a (possibly informal) policy with specific respect to his memos?)
But your point is still well taken; one can get in trouble by excercising
the freedom to forward or post identifiable verbatim messages. I'll live
with that risk. If I was hauled into personnel, and if I felt the company
was being unreasonable, I'd ask myself if I want to continue working here.
Or I might conclude that I'd done something dumb and misjudged under
Tom's "reasonable person" guideline. It wouldn't be my first mistake.
I try and forgive my misjudgements and learn from them and attempt to
extend the same understanding to others.
But so far I can't think of anyplace I'd rather work than at Digital.*
- greg
* well, maybe CERN ;-)
|
| 629.28 | My last word on this subject! | UCOUNT::BAILEY | Corporate Sleuth | Fri Oct 14 1988 14:23 | 58 |
| I was asked to narrow and qualify my stance on "no copying without
permission", so, if you'll bear with me, I'll try to do that.
First of all, I recognize that the "rule" I'm opining is rigid --
I break it myself under certain circumstances. (For example, as
a special librarian at DEC my contract position is based on charge-
backs to my clients, and their support of my continuance here. If
I get a flattering mail message regarding my helpfulness I forward
it to my supervisor who may well send it on to her manager. But,
unless there is something frankly personal or easily misunderstood
in the message [in which case I wouldn't forward it, by the way]
I consider that kind of message to contain "implied" approval.)
Most notes would probably contain "implied approval" -- generic
directions to a place, instructions, recommendations, etc. I still
think the absolutely correct and appropriate thing to do is to ask,
but I recognize the impracticality of that (and, probably, the lack
of real need for that) in some situations.
However, personal notes, comments about specific people, speculation
about corporate strategies, and a whole range of other things I
believe are (unless you have good reason to believe otherwise) to
be considered private communications. Maybe the author is just
working an idea out in writing, but they don't feel committed to
it. Maybe you forward the message to somebody who forwards it and
it gets back to the author's boss who takes exception. Maybe I
put a disgruntled description of an event about my boss in a notes
file I know she never reads, and you copy it to one she does read...and
she recognizes the thinly veiled event and gets angry. I've seen
too many problems started by innocent repetition of ordinary gossip
to believe that electronic gossip is "safe".
I can go along with the "reasonable person" approach AS LONG AS
we are very critical when we make these judgements. It may seem
VERY reasonable to one person but there may be facts that make it
very UNreasonable to the author.
By the way, if you are getting over 100 mail messages a day, I'll
bet a sizable percentage of them are "junk-mail" forwarded to you
by people who own distribution lists and who wholesale distribute
evrything they see that might remotely be of interest to a percentage
of the list. Wouldn't it be better if you got fewer messages that
were all of value? I think overuse of distribution lists is a big
pain in the neck! (I once received three copies of the same message
directly and six forewards because of that!)
You need to know the ideal situation to approach it in a rational
and pragmatic way. I want to contrast my view of ideal with the
"me-first" thoughtlessness of the other extreme so it's easier to
argue pros and cons. In actual practise a compromise is necessary.
And, basically you are right that all this electronic chatter belongs
to DEC -- but individuals are the ones who can be penalized if they
sort of forget that or erroneously assume that their private memo
won't be broadcast for the world to read!
(How I do run on!!!)
Sherry
|
| 629.29 | It's a two-way street | DR::BLINN | General Eclectic | Fri Oct 14 1988 15:01 | 27 |
| Sherry, you made an important point near the end of your note
that bears repeating (and I hope you won't be offended by my
copying it here, verbatim, for the world to see..)
> [...] individuals are the ones who can be penalized if they
> sort of forget that or erroneously assume that their private memo
> won't be broadcast for the world to read!
The point some of us are making is that anything you post in an
unrestricted conference isn't a private memo. Anyone who assumes
that something they commit to writing won't be read by a wide
audience is taking a risk. It has been said more than once that
if you wouldn't want something included as part of your employee
record, you probably shouldn't write it in a conference. (If you
want to keep a secret, don't tell it to anyone.) Likewise, if you
expect a MAIL message that's work-related to not be forwarded, you
should probably clearly label it that way.
As for things being widely distributed, in more than one case, the
first notice I've received about events that impact me or my group
has been when I've received a forwarded memo through one of these
lists. Quite frankly, I'd rather wade through a certain amount of
"junk mail" and screen out the useless stuff for the sake of
finding the pearls, than not find out things I need to know to do
my job because someone, somewhere, didn't realize I needed to know.
Tom
|
| 629.31 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 14 1988 18:36 | 37 |
| Back when the memo of Ken's in question was posted here I was one of the
moderators. I called Ken's secretary to find out what all the fuss was
about -- the memo had been sent all over the company before being posted
here. This particular memo had been written by Ken to a *very* small group,
less than a dozen people, and was intended only for that audience. It contained
some fairly privileged statements which really could not be allowed to reach
the wrong people. The Corporate Security investigation was to try to find
out who had leaked the memo.
Ken's secretary made it very clear that Ken's memos are intended only for
those to whom they are addressed -- and that this even included the famous
"Tractors and Computers" memo, which was forwarded all over the company
(I even received a hard copy of it) without Ken's permission long before
we had *any* electronic mail systems.
But when Ken is not in the picture, I don't think there's any blanket answer
that can be given on this subject.
My guidelines are: A memo from a manager to his/her direct reports should
usually not be forwarded. (This covers the situation with Ken's memo.) A
memo discussing an individual's performance should not be sent to anyone not
a manager. (I did not say "only to that employee's manager," however.)
Something that is guaranteed to annoy people should not be forwarded -- but
you're forgiven if you really shouldn't have expected the annoyance to occur.
Just about anything else relating to the business of the company can be
forwarded for business purposes without asking permission.
Non-business communications are similar. If the message is not obviously
"private/privileged" in nature then forwarding/posting it should be ok. BTW,
since non-business use of our systems and networks is not supposed to impact
the business of the company, then noone has a right to waste company resources
(management time) complaining when something unexpected happens with a personal
communication. We fought hard to fix the original policy which disallowed all
non-business communications -- don't screw it up by creating a problem!
/john
|
| 629.32 | | STAR::ROBERT | | Sun Oct 16 1988 11:47 | 31 |
| re: .28
Thanks Sherry. I think our rules as characterized by your examples
are quite similar, though we approached them from opposite starting
points (concern for individual vs. corporate needs/rights), but we
end up at about the same point.
Yes, a lot of the 100 mail messages per day (ok, so I exaggerated
a little, it's more like 50-75 but there are busy times and I know
folks who do a 100) are "junk" mail, but I'm in the same camp as
Tom --- I'd rather spend 1-5 second deciding to delete it than miss
something important. Ditto for the 2-300 notes ... it only takes
a second or two to decide.
Digression:
It's fairly common that someone asks "is management
reading this?" (or senior engieers, or whatever).
If mail or notes don't contain at least a clear hint
of their contents on the first screen or two, they
can be easily missed by this kind of scanning.
We should also consider the target of forwarding as well. There's
lots of people who don't overeact to a "flame" or poorly worded
message; they care only for the content and implications. So I
consider not only "FROM" and "SUBJECT" when forwarding, but also
"TO" since I'm at least partially responsible for the downstream
reaction.
- greg
|
| 629.33 | | KBOMFG::POST | Veni Vedi Vinci | Fri Oct 21 1988 17:46 | 36 |
| < Note 629.25 by EAGLE1::EGGERS "Tom,293-5358,VAX&MIPS Architecture" >
-< you may forward my notes >-
I really was quite surprised to find I had given the author of .0 any
problem at all. ("Problem" is probably not the right word.) It made me
think quite a bit about my forwarding practises. I will probably be a
bit more careful from now on, but I don't intend to change those
practises (at least not until I hear much stronger reasons and a larger
group of people opposed).
>> Tom, the ball is back in my court. Why was I caught off guard with
you cross posting my original note which was posted in WAR_story?
The answer is really quite straight forward - and I probably only have
myself to blaim. WAR_STORY was a kind of humerous note book, which I
woevery now and then. As a matter of fact, I am not a frequent
NOTER at all, and really only access a few conference on a regular
basis. As I originally stated, I was shocked by the responses that my
note generated. The responses were not at all what I had anticipated when
I posted what I thought was a humorous note (I had hoped other people
would share their war stories on similar occassions).
I was caught off guard, wheinformed that it had been cross-posted in
HUMAN::DIGITAL especially since I had never before even heard of this
conference. What type of audience read DIGITAL, What type of MAILS was
I yet to encounter due to my note (As mentioned previously, I received
some very strong NASTY-GRAMS based on my note which were quite upsetting).
In other words, there were alot of open questions which time would only
answer.
Now that I have access HUMAN::DIGITAL and read what this conference is
all about, I am glad that it was cross-posted.
|
| 629.34 | Assume Responsibility | MTADMS::JOHNSON | Rob -- Ski COLORADO! It's AWESOME! | Tue Jan 24 1989 13:19 | 62 |
| I consider myself to be a fairly ethical person and conduct my-
self and my actions accordingly. Many 'good' points have been dis-
cussed here and I'm sure most of us follow similar 'personal rules'
when deciding to 'forward' or not to 'forward' material of any nature.
I am fully aware that most employees within Digital have their own
account (to include Mr. Olsen) and may 'at will' enter any 'non-restricted'
conference and read my notes. If I enter a note in a 'non-restricted'
conference, I have, consciously or subconsciously, decided that I don't
care if those with 'authorized' access read my note. As such, if I make
a 'derogatory' remark concerning Mr. Olsen in a 'non-restricted' con-
ference and a participant of the conference 'forwards' that note to Mr.
Olsen directly, should I 'berate' the participant for forwarding it to
Mr. Olsen? No! It's my own fault and I shouldn't have made the remark
if I wasn't willing to 'pay the price'. HOWEVER, if I make a derogatory
remark about my wife (who does not have 'authorized' access) in a 'non-
restricted' conference and a participant of the conference mails my wife
a copy, you can be certain that I will take steps to communicate my
extreme disapproval and would personally find that 'unethical'. In
addition, if at some point I decide to 'delete' my original note and
post a retraction, I would expect others to honor my 'request' to
delete or 'remove my words and other identifying marks' from their
cross-postings.
Notes in 'restricted' conferences and 'mail' are an altogether dif-
ferent situation, regardless of the distribution list attached (if I
wanted the 'world' to know what the memo said, I would have listed the
'world' under 'DISTRIBUTION'). I don't want to get into the 'file pro-
tection' issue that is being discussed elsewhere. Anything I write in
a 'restricted' conference or to parties through mail is personally con-
sidered 'for member's or addressee's eyes ONLY!'. I 'DO' forward 'mail'
and notes from 'restricted' conferences from time to time as do most of
us during the course of conducting business. HOWEVER, if I forward some-
thing that results in damage to the author, I will always take full res-
ponsibility if I didn't take the time to get the author's permission. I
won't attempt to 'interpret' the author's intent when he/she first mailed
me the memo or when he/she entered his/her note in a 'restricted' con-
ference. I believe in 'calling a spade a spade'. As such, if I 'mail'
a memo to someone or post a note in a 'restricted' conference, I assume
someone will 'forward' that memo or note (or parts thereof) to someone
else during the course of business. I expect that party to use their
best judgement before forwarding and if the 'forwarding' of that memo
or note gets me in hot water, I expect the guilty party to own up to
making a 'judgement' error and not attempt to prove that I 'intended'
the memo or note to be forwarded.
The rules that follow should be applied to my memos and notes:
a. If I have posted a note in a 'non-restricted' conference, feel free
to forward that note to anyone who has 'legitimate, authorized' access
to that conference.
b. If I have posted a note in a 'restricted' conference, don't forward
that note to anyone who is 'not' a member of that conference unless you
are willing to take responsibility for your actions.
c. If I send you a memo (terminally or hard-copy), don't forward that
memo to anyone who is 'not' listed under 'DISTRIBUTION' or on the ad-
dressee line unless you are willing to take responsibility for your
actions.
-- Rob
|