Conference 7.286::digital

What in the policy do you see as "relat[ing] to the way we NOTE at Digital"?
The requirement for an identified moderator, and for the openness of non-work-
related files, and restrictions on certain kinds of statemtns, have been
policy for a long time.  The requirement for restricted notesfiles for
"Digital classified" material - a concept that, last I heard, doesn't really
exist - has been stated before in security-related policies, in a more
correct form.

All I see as new is the matter of casting as policy a requirement that has
in the past been a matter of courtesy:  Leaving the original author's name on
a posted piece of writing.

Am I missing something of significance here?
							-- Jerry

    re: .1
    
    Quoting from .0:
    
>  Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the responsibility 
>  of the original author.  Posting materials in a notes file/conference without 
>  the explicit permission of the author is prohibited and is a violation of 
>  this policy.  When forwarding messages or posting them to conferences, 
>  removal or falsification of the original message header (which indicates 
>  the author) is prohibited.
    
    Perhaps I've just never seen the old wording before, but it seems
    the question of "who owns the message" has been debated more than
    once in this forum.
    
    I also find the first sentence (above) to be rather interesting.
    It seems to imply that the author of the _original_ message is to
    be held responsible for the final destination of a message.  For
    instance, a VP sends a message to the next level of managers.  If
    it gets forwarded to people who "don't need to know" it appears
    that the original VP could catch the grief.
    
    It also seems that we have passed the notion of "don't forward w/o
    permission" from the realm of etiquette to policy (or at least more
    visible policy).  Field folks, it seems, have a slight chance of
    gaining some familiarity with the PP&P.  Other policies seem to
    be largely unknown.
    
    Indeed, witness the fact that several times of late, persons have
    attempted to post confidential memos in this conference.  Others
    have attempted to post messages from high-level persons which were
    apparently inappropriate for general distribution (although not
    specifically marked Digital Confidential).  Perhaps the changed
    Policy is to emphasize that these things ought not to be done.
    
    A side effect is the question: Did I break the rule by posting it
    here?  It would seem that the answer might be "Yes" (I have no direct
    permission to do so by the "author").  It would seem that some people
    might use this as an excuse to become somewhat paranoid of spreading
    information.  I can also envision (sadly) some UM's not distributing
    memos to their reports because the originator didn't specifically
    say to do so, regardless of the obvious intent of the memo.
    
    -- Russ

    
    This looks like a response to the recient 'high level' memo that
    got circulated when it shouldn't have.  Very sad...
    
    My theory is right out of Grace Hopper's script:
    
    "Do the right thing in all cases..."
    
    Jon
    

    This policy seems reasonable and sensible except for one thing. I don't
    understand why I can't post a mail message in a notesfile that I have
    received from another employee where the mail message is unmarked or
    only marked 'Digital Internal Use Only'.
    
    If I receive a hard copy communication I believe I am at liberty to
    post it on my office wall. I wonder whether I would be allowed to
    print an electronic message out and post it on my office wall?
    
    I very strongly believe that it is up to the recipient of a piece of
    correspondence to decide what to do with it. The only exception is if
    the sender has explicitly stated what you can/can't do with the
    correspondence or has somehow labelled it with restrictive a
    classification.
    
    I presume this new policy means I can't publish useful memos from SQM
    etc in our local OPEN notesfile. Well if that is the case I will
    just be violating the policy. I also see no harm in posting interesting
    memos here in DIGITAL.NOTE as long as they are not classied
    'Digital Confidential' or 'Digital Personal'. If I get such a memo
    that it seems reasonable to post here I will post it. I guess illogical
    parts of policies are want to get ignored.
    
    Dave

    I disagree strongly. If you receive a mail message, either directed to
    you or to some specific distribution list, the assumption is that the
    sender intended it to reach that specific audience. It's reasonable to
    ask the sender "do you mind if I post this in the Digital conference?"
    and then do so if the answer is in the affirmative, or if there was
    some indication of "feel free to distribute widely" in the message
    itself. In the absence of these clues, you would have no business
    posting anything you didn't write in a notes conference.

    The analogy with your office wall isn't convincing. Maybe a hundred
    or two people a day pass your office wall, and of them perhaps half a
    dozen would actually read the posting. There's a difference in scale by
    several orders of magnitude.

re:         <<< Note 934.5 by STAR::BECK "The question is - 2B or D4?" >>>

>    The analogy with your office wall isn't convincing. Maybe a hundred
>    or two people a day pass your office wall, and of them perhaps half a
>    dozen would actually read the posting. There's a difference in scale by
>    several orders of magnitude.

     While I agree with you in general, Paul, I can't quite agree with this,
     specifically. I think Dave made a valid point in .4. Your same point
     could be made that if an electronic message were posted in the
     (hypothetical) SONS_OF_THE_LATVIAN_WOLF_FRATERNAL_ORDER conference it
     wouldn't be as visible as if posted in ASKENET, or SOAPBOX, or DIGITAL,
     or any other widely-read/heavily-participated-in conference. The issue
     is not "how many people are likely to see it in reality", but rather
     "how many people could theoretically see it".

     I could quite easily see this policy stretched to the extent Dave
     suggests. I can't say that I'd like that, but I'm not so sure it
     wouldn't be appropriate.

     -Jack

    .4> This policy seems reasonable and sensible except for one thing. I don't
    .4> understand why I can't post a mail message in a notesfile that I
    .4> have received from another employee where the mail message is unmarked
    .4> or only marked 'Digital Internal Use Only'.
    
    You can't because the rule now states you can't.  END OF DISCUSSION.
    If you don't like the rules set down, then work within the system to
    get the rule changed.  Find out who was on the committee to write the
    new policy. Talk to them, and explain where you think the poicy needs
    to be changed. Petition them, not this conference, this conference
    doesn't change the policy, only enforces it.
    
    AS just posted in another reply to another topic (828)
    
    Please let the above stand for every one...  YOU HAVE TO HAVE
    PERMISSION to post ANY mail OF ANY sort in this conference. IF not the
    reply (or topic) to the topic will be hidden or returned to you.
    
    Gale (co-mod)
    
    
     

What's interesting is that there is no prohibition of sending a message onward
to a mail distribution list without permission.

Permission is only required to post something in a VAX Notes conference.

And permission is required not only for mail, but also for notes.

The practice of quoting part of another person's note (using the REPLY/INCLUDE
feature of VAX Notes) is now prohibited by policy.

/john

Also note that this claims to be a worldwide policy, whereas the old policy
was U.S. only (though it had been adopted in some other countries).

/john

    
    Re:
    
>Permission is only required to post something in a VAX Notes conference.

>And permission is required not only for mail, but also for notes.

>The practice of quoting part of another person's note (using the REPLY/INCLUDE
>feature of VAX Notes) is now prohibited by policy.

    Woops did I just violate this new policy by citing a previous previous
    response? As John has eloquently pointed out the policy is internally
    inconsistent. I predict that because of that it will tend to be
    ignored, at least after the initial bruhaha has died down. It is very
    difficult to follow internally inconsistent policies because someone
    can legitimately argue that the forbidden action falls outside the
    policy due to its similarilty to something that the policy allows.
    
    I guess I just need to get myself back on the 'junk' mailing lists now
    that notesfiles will be less useful for picking up information. What
    a waste of disk space and network bandwidth. Mailing lists worked in
    the past I guess they can work again.
    
    Dave

    So, who are the responsible individuals to whom comments about the
    modified policy should be directed??
    
    Looks like I've got a long memo to write...
    
    Dave
    
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Explicit permission is hereby granted for the preceding material to 
    be reposted to any conference residing on systems which are members 
    of Digital's "Easynet" network, and/or forwarded via electronic or 
    other means to any employees of Digital Equipment Corporation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Hmmm, does that cover it all? I want to include those people that
    work for our non-US "companies" (DEC Canada, for example), but I'm 
    not sure if saying "Digital Equipment Corporation" implicitly 
    includes them or not...  Now to figure out how to include the above
    in a seperate paste buffer in every mail/notes/editor I use...

    After thinking about this for a night, I can envision some realistic
    and disturbing consequences of this new policy.
    
    As one working in the field, I have been accutely aware that
    information often does not flow to those who need to know it.  As
    a result, some folks (including myself) have taken to notes to search
    for the information which is needed to do our jobs properly.  It
    is not unusual to see a copy of a memo which affects my job appearing
    in a notes conference long before it comes through normal channels
    (if it makes it through normal channels _at all_).
    
    It seems that the abuse of this situation, wherein people post
    confidential information, has caused Corporate policy-makers to
    close the well, rather than to purify the waters.
    
    I can think of many memos which will never be seen because the
    recipients will not want to ask a high-level VP for permission (a
    potential career-limiting action, perhaps?).  And, what's more,
    many people who _should_ get the information _never_ will.
    
    The worst part of this is that the people who "need to know" may
    not _ever_ know that they haven't received all the information they
    need.  So, the formal communications problem will never be fixed,
    because people will never know that more information was available.
    
    For example, take this topic note.  Everyone who works for Digital
    should know the contents of .0, yet I can believe that many people
    would never have seen it in a timely fashion had it not been posted
    here.  Had this policy been sent by some VP, though, I probably
    would have some concern "bothering" an important person to get permission
    to post it.  As such, people who should have known about it might
    not have found out about it until it was their time to be called
    in on the rug for disobeying a new policy they had never heard about.
    
    I can see the possibility of hard times ahead...
    
    -- Russ
    
    PS/ For the record, I have received permission to post the LIVE
        WIRE article in .0 (before I even got around to ask for it --
    	now _THAT'S_ communication!  8^).  Thanks, Jennifer!

.0 states that it contains "Policy Highlights" and that the full policy will
be forthcoming by 1 November.

Does this mean there are still opportunities to fix the bugs?

/john

    re: .13
    
    As it says, "this policy is effective immediately" I don't think
    the chances of changing the wording are too good.  Sounds like they
    are simply waiting for it to be "published" in the appropriate manner.
    
    That doesn't mean someone couldn't _try_ to "fix it", though...
    
    -- Russ

        Use the  VTX  'communication'  option  and  mail your questions
        concerns and comments directly to the responsible person.
        
        I already have.
        
        Andy
        

	RE: .13 I believe that the policy has been approved by the
	people who approve such things and is now official policy.
	Updates to hardcopy books takes time. I suspect that the
	inclusion of the policy in VTX ORANGEBOOK is timed to come
	out with the hard copy updates.

	Second point. There is always time to fix problems. I believe
	that this policy is going to be re-visited soon to address
	other issues. This policy is one of the more re-visited policies
	in the orange book. Each itteration I've seen has fixed some
	problems. Some versions have created others. Things placed in
	this conference and, probably, in the MODERATORS conference do
	have, I believe, a better than average chance of being seen by
	people who write these policies. I know that at least two people
	who worked on this last draft read this conference. I do not know
	if those two will be involved in the next draft though.

			Alfred

    
    Aw Jeez, will you guys quit bitching and apply a modicum of common
    sense?
    
    Everyone was crabbing a while back about how Big Brother was going to
    squash all non-business use of company equipment. The new policy
    specifically "permits access to these systems to communicate matters of
    opinions and common interests." Recreational noting lives!
    
    Instead of trying to analyze individually every phase in the
    "responsibility" paragraph, read the whole thing and get its spirit! If
    I author something electronically, I own it. I am responsible for the
    accuracy of the information it contains, and for deciding the relevant
    audience for the information. You are prohibited from usurping my
    responsibility in these matters without my permission.
    
    Speculation that taking something from an explicitly public source like
    Live Wire and reproducing it in another explicity public forum like the
    Digital conference is a shameful waste of bandwidth.
    
    And moderators, please note that there is nothing in the policy that
    appoints conferences moderators as "enforcers" of this policy. It may
    be perfectly reasonable to contact the submitters of things as
    potentially explosive as a sales force reorganization memo, and remind
    those submitters of their responsibility to seek the permission of the
    original author. It may NOT be reasonable to assume that adults are not
    discharging their responsibilities, and set a note hidden based on that
    assumption, until the opposite is demonstrated. I've always considered
    "innocent until proven guilty" a good rule of thumb.
    
    
    It's not a flawless piece of logic. It _IS_ a sensitive and balanced
    policy. It puts our company light years ahead of corporations
    that stifle the free communication of ideas on a personal level.
    Quit your belly-aching, and rejoice in this affirmation that
    right-thinking people still live at the corporate level.
    

Well, Wild Bill,

are you AUTHORIZED by the Personnel Policies Committee to tell us that the word
"material" in the policy really means "mail not addressed to all employees" and
that the policy does not restrict posting other material without the author's
position?

/john

Actually, I was on the whole pleased by the policy.  
Yes, it has holes.
Yes, it needs some bugs and inconsistencies worked out.
Given the memos going around that recreational notes were a violation of
the proper use of corporate resources, I am very happy to see this policy
explicitly blow them out of the water.

Reading the whole of the hilights, it seems that the spirit of the policy
(as I read it, speaking for nobody other than myself) is to prohibit extracting
electronic communications targeted for one audience, and publishing them
before a different audience, without the author's permission.  I view this
as valid.  I don't see that reposting excerpts of text in the same forum
is a violation of this policy.

Obviously, there is room for other interperetations in the wording of the
policy, and thus it needs to be refined.

So, how do we do that?
Kevin

    A thumbnail sketch of what the latest policy could entail:
    
    - Yet another opportunity for "selective interpretation" by managers
    who are disgruntled about the increased flow of information directly
    to employees.
    
    - And another incentive to return to the "good ole boy" method of
    distributing hot information through massive VAXmail mailing lists.
    "What you know" will again become directly related to "Who you know".
    
    - Finally, another indication of the reversal of old DEC cultural
    concepts that endorsed openness and sharing between employees.  If
    the "official" methods of dissemination breaks down (which they
    have in many areas) then the employees have no other recourse.
    
    I am glad that the policy did implicitly sanction the use of notes
    and electronic mail as a means to exchange information that is not
    directly business related, but when it comes bundled with statements
    that may turn us all into information censors, then my feelings are
    decidely mixed.
    
    Geoff

    re: .20 (Geoff)
    
    	   Methinks you worry overmuch about minutae.  
    
    	   Nothing that you described was prevented by the *lack*
    	of an official corporate policy.  Likewise, I see no reason
    	to believe that what you describe is made any more likely 
    	by the existance of an official policy.
    
    	   About two months ago, word got around that a new policy
    	was being formulated.  At that time, several managers jumped
    	the gun and dumped all of the personal interest conferences
    	from their nodes.  I picked up one of them.  Even before 
    	there was a policy, there were managers using their authority
    	in an attempt to control use of the corporate resources
    	(of which, information is without a doubt the most valuable).
    
    	   So now we have an official policy which lays out in detail
    	the policies we have (for the most part) been following anyway.
    	Unlike you, I do not see that the ruling -- that original authors
    	must be contacted before distributing their material -- will be
    	in any way problematic for us.  In fact, I myself have been burned 
    	by the *lack* of such a policy.  A story I posted to PROSE once
    	got stolen, copied onto another BBS, and eventually ended up
    	published in the DECUS SIG Newsletters.  It wouldn't have been
    	so bad, except that whoever stole it didn't even give me credit
    	for writing it!
    
    	   This sort of policy has been needed for a while now.  If it 
    	means we have to work just a little harder to disseminate 
    	sensitive information, then so be it.  It's worth the cost
    	in time to protect not only our company, but ourselves.
    
    	- Greg

    Whatever happened to the good 'ole Digital philosophy of pushing
    responsibility down. Ie making those that do something responsible
    for their actions? In fact I find this all rather ironic, the
    sales 'reorg' memo that seems to have been hidden 3 or more times
    already in this conference was very much advocating the devolution
    of responsibility. But now we've got some ascenine policy whereby
    you have to bother the author of a memo to see if you can post it
    in a notes conference. What a waste of the authors time.
    
    I often send out mail messages to people concerning the products I work
    on (the DECnet/SNA products). I fully expect information I put in those
    memos to be used by the recipients in any way they see fit. If that
    involves distributing it around a unit, posting it to VMSINTEREST,
    putting it in a notesfile then so be it. I'd be really annoyed if
    people bothered me asking what they could do with the mail message
    I sent.
    
    If for some reason somebody distributed it outside the company I would
    expect it to be nothing to do with me. Responsibility and any
    punishment should lay at the door of the person who misused the
    information. This philosophy encourages people to think for themselves.
    I hope the details of this policy are rethought.
    
    Dave

    Imagine trying to locate an author a year after a note was
    posted just to get permission to cross-post, only to discover
    they are in another position/group/left DEC, etc.
    
    I can forsee timely cross-postings being a thing of the past as
    some noters will obey the policy to the letter. Imagine someone
    trying to get permission from a group or committee, if that is
    how a particular note or mail was developed!
    
    In general, it would help if notes awareness could be raised to
    the point that high-level managers would be aware of noting in
    general, and also have awareness of the various notes confrences
    within DEC and would include the necessary verbage in their
    memos (as a header) that would eliminate any ambiguity about
    distribution (a few examples):
    
        PERMISSION FOR UNLIMITED DEC INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION IS
        GRANTED
    
        or
    
        FOR DEC INTERNAL SALES ORGANIZATION DISTRIBUTION ONLY

    I know, we don't need another policy. What we need is manager
    awareness of the communication channels that exist within DEC.
    
    I wonder how many different queries Dave Grainger (and the other
    folkes that had their names on the top of the memo) will get
    asking permission to post the Sales Reorg memo in conferences?
    Could queries be avoided with a proper distribution heading?
    Probably so.

                               -=-=-=-=-=-
    
    Is this much ado about nothing? Is paranoia creeping in? You
    bet!

    Sure, many will honor the spirit of the policy and defy the
    letter of it every day by cross-posting harmless notes from one
    conference to another...  but all it takes is a sorehead or
    someone with an axe to grind to complain about someone not
    obtaining permission (even though the note is harmless) and a
    big stink could be raised, even to the point of employee
    discipline. I know (assume?) that this is contrary to the spirit
    of the policy, but certainly isn't contrary to the way it is
    worded.... read it (Emphasis in UPPER CASE is mine):
    
    >Policy violations
 
    >Managers who suspect that systems are being used improperly should discuss 
    >the problem with the employee in question and, if appropriate, involve 
    >security.  IN CASES WHERE IMPROPER USE HAS BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED, THE 
    >EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND 
    >DISCIPLINARY POLICY (6.21).
    
    Does the highlighted text above apply only to 'improper use' of
    systems, or does it also include not obtaining author permission
    for posting/cross-posting? I dunno.
    
    Lee

    Personally, I cannot see reason for not being able to REPLY/INCLUDE
    text from a note previously entered into an open conference. 
    Sometimes, I find it necessary to do so in order to provide emphasis on
    previous remarks.  
    
    While cross-posting such notes between conferences -may- be
    questionable (perhaps the author didn't intend their remarks posted in
    another conference), if (s)he posted said comments into this open
    conference, (s)he has virtually given permission to post said comments
    anywhere within this conference as long as the verbage remains
    unchanged.
    
    It was noted that the policy is effective immediately.  Should it be 
    assumed to be retroactive (ie., if there are notes already written
    that don't follow policy, action should be taken on them)?
    
    -Andy

    
    Re .18:
    
    Do you assume I am so AUTHORIZED because I choose to state my
    interpretation of the policy in an open forum? A poor assumption at
    best!
    
    If you seek my INTERPRETATION in this matter, I will give it freely.
    I believe that the policy expects me to understand the author's intended
    audience before relaying ANY and ALL information. An attempt to
    selectively apply this policy based on the medium (note, electronic mail,
    paper mail, product specification, design document, performance review,
    sign on the front door, etc ad nauseum) is an exercise in foolishness.

    Policies are especially sensitive to Notes because unlike VTX, there is
    no human in the loop at the server required to add information to the
    conference, and unlike Mail, the server doesn't need to have a priori
    information about the recipient.  Notes doesn't have accountability and
    recipient controls; it's rather anarchistic.

    One could imagine a new system that works like this: there is a
    active "write-only" medium someplace, it accepts text and network
    addresses.

    When you write a network address to it, it uses VAXmail to send that
    network address the text that has been written to it.

    This, in fact, is a description of the old way that USENET newsgroups
    were processed on the EASYNET. (see UPSAR::NEWS_BACKBONE for more on
    USENET newsgroups)

	RE: .17
>    And moderators, please note that there is nothing in the policy that
>    appoints conferences moderators as "enforcers" of this policy. 

	I disagree. I quote the policy below:

-    Conference moderators - Conference (notesfile) moderators 
-    are expected to periodically review the contents of the 
-    conferences they moderate to insure that material contained 
-    in those files meet the letter and spirit of this policy. 
-    Moderators are expected to remove any material that does 
-    not comply with these standards, and should report 
-    violations of this policy to the appropriate systems or 
-    cost center manager.

			Alfred

    A point that hasn't been discussed so far is that everything we
    write on company time using company resources is company property.
    At least I signed an agreement  like that.  Thus one could argue
    that once it leaves your span of control it is by default 'public'
    information to all Digital employees who receive it.
    
    I feel very strongly that it is the responsibility of the author
    to explicitly state the intended audience if it is in fact less
    than global (inside Digital).   This is a company run by influencing
    across informal boundaries.  The formal paths of communication are 
    (and have been for some time) badly broken.   It is exceedingly
    important that in this environment enough trust exists to see that 
    information flows freely.
    
    This policy will not enhance the free flow of information.  By assuming
    a private status as the default condition, the policy implies a
    default status of no trust.    
    
    If I want to have a private conversation in a crowded room I don't
    yell, I whisper.  If I send something electronically I use an
    electronic whisper by assuming the world is listening and writing
    accordingly.   I'm really sick of learning the latest Digital
    pronouncement in the trade press and I fear that this policy will
    simply worsen the illness.
    

	Before I continue, a definition of the word 'solicit':

		'so-lic-it v. 1. To seek to obtain: solicit votes.
			2. To entreat; importune.  3. To entice;
			tempt.  --solicitation'


 
>    "Conferences created to communicate matters of opinion and common
>     interests may not be used for solicitations of any kind..."
 
	Based on the definition above, parts 2 and 3, I can understand
	the policy statement.  To push, implore, insist repeatedly and
	tempt others does not fit the Digital Philosophy, at least my
	concept of the Philosophy.

	With regard to 1, I have a problem.  To me, this means that I
	can't solicite buyers for items I wish to sell through conferences.
	CDs in CDSWAP, Comics in COMICS, the whole Classifieds conference
	is out, 'For Sale' notes in all conferences will have to be shut
	down.  Is this right?

	This is allowed through the DTW and other area Digital sponsored
	community publications, why not in conferences?

	I can understand and support restricting notes/replies to only
	those items for sale by Digital employees and families.  Also,
	those that aren't profit-making enterprises.

	Dan

	BTW, besides writing comments in VTX, who do I send to regarding
		my opinions on the policy?

    Some common sense applies here. As a philosophical abstraction,
    communication is "solicitation".
    
    The context in the policy is "unwelcome" solicitation both with respect
    to the form the solicitation is made, and its relevance to the content
    of the conference, with the moderators making the judgment call.

>  <<< Note 934.30 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "I was focused when focus wasnt cool" >>>

>    Some common sense applies here. As a philosophical abstraction,
>    communication is "solicitation".
OK, that's your interpretation.  To me, '...solicitation of any kind...'
means all definitions of the word.  Why else would they put 'of any kind'?

Do you mean by 'common sense', 'I don't think that they mean that.'  If so
you are the wrong person to determine that, unless, of course, you are part
of the committee that drew up the policy, which I doubt.
    
>    The context in the policy is "unwelcome" solicitation both with respect
>    to the form the solicitation is made, and its relevance to the content
>    of the conference, with the moderators making the judgment call.
What in the policy gives you the impression that 'unwelcome' is the context
they mean?  That paragraph is straight forward, and the sentence is:

	'Conferences created to communicate matter of opinion and common
	 interests may not be used for solicitations of any kind, and
	 must be open to all employees.'

I feel the the statement is important enough to require clarification.  This
shouldn't be a judgment call by the moderator.  What's to say the moderators
judgment agrees with his supervisors?  The above statement could be taken
'common sense'ly opposing ways by both, resulting in discipline for the
moderator.

So moderators may decide to play it safe and remove/prohibit for sale or
wanted notes 'of any kind' to play it safe.

Already, it has happened in the COMICS conference.

Dan

Re: .31

>Do you mean by 'common sense', 'I don't think that they mean that.'  If so
>you are the wrong person to determine that, unless, of course, you are part
>of the committee that drew up the policy, which I doubt.
    
>                   -< Clarification would clear this up... >-

Why make things harder than they have to be?  If you ask for clarification
chances are they'll just tighten up the language and make the policy even
tougher than it is now.  I think the moderators should interpret this policy
in the light of common sense, considering the problem that the committee
was trying to solve, in the spirit of "do the right thing".  If moderators
make a sincere effort to interpret the spirit of the policy, I doubt that
they'll be disciplined for not following it to the letter.

Remember, "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission."
(No, I didn't get permission from Grace Hopper to post that. :-) ).

				-- Bob

This is the only place I know of where management can call for a rulebook
slowdown against the rank-and-file.
				/AHM

Solicit: to beg for, canvas, appeal for (favor, help, a vote etc.);
	 to importune, approach with appeals;...
	 [importune: to vex (someone) by demanding too often or too
	 vehemently or unreasonably]

Solicitation: the practive, or an act, of soliciting

----

If "appealing for help" is solicitation, I guess we can't ask questions about
products, either. Somewhere, some over-anxious manager is going to shut down
some product conference, I can see it now.

So, what does "soliciting" mean? Let's forget NOTES for a moment, and remember
that "soliciting" is also prohibited in the office (on company time).
This is where someone walks around the office with a briefcase full of watches,
etc. etc. looking to sell them off. Of course, you can't solicit with NOTES,
even during lunch or after hours, because you are using _Digital resources_ to
do it. (In the office you only use your mouth, hands, and feet.)

By the book now, for you over-anxious managers reading this...


ORANGE BOOK SECTION 6.19,
"Solicitations and Distribution of Literature":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is Digital's policy that all employees are not to solicit other employees for
any purpose during working time.  Working time does not include break time or
meal time.  Digital employees are not permitted to distribute literature of any
kind and at any time in working areas.

Persons who are not employees of the Company are prohibited from distributing
literature of any kind or soliciting employees for any purpose at any time on
Company property.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ORANGE BOOK SECTION 6.24,
"Employee Conduct":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOPE:  WORLDWIDE

Digital strives to create and maintain a positive work environment. To achieve
this, the Company encourages courteous and respectful behavior, a responsible
attitude toward work and respect for employee and Company property.
...

IN GENERAL, EMPLOYEES CAN ANTICIPATE THAT ACTIONS HARMFUL TO ANOTHER EMPLOYEE OR
TO THE COMPANY ARE CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES OR POSSIBLE DISMISSAL. 
SPECIFICALLY, EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO BE AT THEIR WORK SITES AND ATTEND TO
THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES.

EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO RESPECT THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY OF OTHERS.

For example, they will not:
...
      o Behave in a manner offensive to others.

      o Solicit from others on working time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ORANGE BOOK SECTION 6.54,
"Proper Use of Digital Computers, Systems, and Networks":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of this policy, improper use includes, but is not limited to, the
use of Digital owned and/or operated computer systems and networks for the
purpose of gaining unauthorized access to internal or external computer systems
or accounts, for personal purposes that are contrary to Company philosophy or
policy, for purposes that interfere with the Company's business activities, or
for purposes of individual financial gain.  Examples of misuse could be
transmitting offensive, harassing and/or devaluing statements, developing and
transmitting inappropriate graphics, transmitting sexual or ethnic slurs or
jokes, soliciting other employees,...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posting a note saying "This belongs to me and I want to sell it" is NOT
soliciting. The CLASSIFIED_ADS conference, for example, is perfectly fine.

Posting a note saying "I sell widgets cheap, call me and tell me how many you
want" IS soliciting.

My 2 cents:

I would *FIRE* any manager who decrees that all "for sale" notes are forbidden.
They clearly have _nothing better to do_ and are therefore NOT contributing to
Digital. I can *GUARANTEE* that we'd solve more than one problem that way.


/Peters

I am happy to let you folks know that we are being listened to and that one
critical problem I had with the document has been fixed prior to further
publication.  The VTX copy has already been updated.

Development of this policy is an ongoing process.  It is clear that we have
significant corporate support for "doing the right thing."

From the copy of the policy as posted earlier:

>Responsibility for content of messages sent or posted on the network
>
>  Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the responsibility 
>  of the original author.  Posting materials in a notes file/conference without
>  the explicit permission of the author is prohibited and is a violation of 
>  this policy.

A number of us had a problem with the wording of this, since it was quite vague
as to what was meant by "materials."  The wording change is to add the word
"these", making the word materials refer specifically to messages mailed or
posted over the Digital network.  Other materials from other sources are not
affected.  I have also received a clear statement (not in the policy, but
clear nonetheless) that it is not the intent of the policy to prohibit quoting
other notes _in_the_same_conference_ as part of replies.

This change helps.  I know it doesn't completely address all our concerns, but
it does make things a little more clear.

/john

>>Posting a note saying "I sell widgets cheap, call me and tell me how many you
>>want" IS soliciting.

:)

Actually, I give my widgets away (and often "advertise" them in the notes
files).  You can find lots of widgets in the DECWINDOWS notes files if
you're interested.

-steve-  (VMS/DECwindows widget developer)

< In all cases, a computer conference must have an identified conference 
< moderator.  Where the conference directly supports the company's business, 
< the conference moderator and the responsible systems manager may elect to 
< restrict access to the conference.  Digital classified information may only 
                                      ---------------------------------------
< be placed in a conference with restricted access.  Conferences created to 
  -------------------------------------------------

    Is there any work going on to clarify this??? For example, the contents
    of this conference are classified "Digital Internal Use Only", therefore
    it must be a restricted conference??
    
    Dave

	I've always assumed that the term "Digital Classified" meant anything
	more strictly controled than "Digital Internal Use Only". That is to
	say that it is a catch all term that includes Digital Confidential,
	Digital Restricted Distribution etc.

			Alfred

A number of replies enjoin "common sense" and offer interpretations of the
"spirit" of the policy quoted in .0. The burden of these replies seems to be:
"Come on, don't be awkward, we're all buddies working together, and this
policy is well meant". I disagree with this opinion.

Policies, like laws, must be precise and unambiguous. If they are vague, they
simply offer carte blanche to the security forces to intimidate employees under
a wide range of ill-defined circumstances. Since most employees are not
descended from Joan of Arc (well, I guess nobody is :-) their reaction will
be to steer altogether clear of those circumstances. They will treat the
relevant area like an Army firing range. This is not a healthy way to feel
about the means of communication within our enterprise.

re .7 (Gale Kleinberger):

I wish I could quote from Gale's reply, because that would remind readers of
this reply what she said. But I think best not to (bullets are no respecters
of persons or good intentions). At the risk of misrepresenting Gale (a risk
which is always present when paraphrasing), I think she said that now that
there is a rule forbidding the posting of mail messages in Notes, we mustn't
do it. She also feels that if someone disagrees with the policy, the right thing
to do is to find the people who were on the committee which wrote the policy,
and persuade them to change their minds.

I for one am unlikely to do this, because

	(a) I don't know who they are;
	(b) I just about have time to write this reply, but I do not have
	    a week to spare emulating a private detective.
	(c) They live on the other side of the Atlantic, so a quiet chat
	    is pretty well ruled out;
	(d) If we did have a quiet chat, it would be a CLM.
	(e) I have a plaque on my desk which reads:

	"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
	 the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know
	 the difference."

	    In this case it doesn't take very much wisdom.

But I don't like it, I'm not comfortable with it, I can't figure out what the
implications will be, and so I want to talk it over with my colleagues. Maybe
this isn't the right forum?

re .0:

The policy as quoted seems to me to state that it is not allowed to post mail
in notesfiles, or to disseminate notes by mailing them or reposting them in
other conferences. If you don't believe this, read it carefully.

Please notice, too, that the policy calls for "explicit" permission. That
clearly rules out any assumption that the default is to have permission
unless explicitly denied. So I guess the only way to handle it is to adopt
Dave Lennig's approach (in .11) and place a canned permission statement in
all one's mail and notes except those that should be restricted.

My reaction is that this policy is excessively restrictive. I believe we would
get much better results by

	(a) Carefully thinking out, publicising and enforcing a system of
	    restricted circulation (which already exists, e.g. "DIGITAL
	    restricted, do not copy", but is little known, which is why
	    I don't remember the exact wording).

	(b) Educating all managers and employees in the handling of Digital's
	    information. You cannot fix a people problem by imposing rules.

/Tom

>The policy as quoted seems to me to state that it is not allowed to post mail
>in notesfiles, or to disseminate notes by mailing them or reposting them in
>other conferences. If you don't believe this, read it carefully.

Tom, please read it carefully.

The restriction on dissemination only applies to posting in a conference, not
forwarding.  The rule about forwarding does not require permission, it only
requires that the name of the original author not be removed.

From VTX, today:

Responsibility for content of messages sent or posted on the network

  Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the responsibility
  of the original author.  Posting these materials in a notes file/conference
  without the explicit permission of the author is prohibited and is a
  violation of this policy.  When forwarding messages or posting them to
  conferences, removal or falsification of the original message header (which
  indicates the author) is prohibited.

/john

>I wish I could quote from Gale's reply, because that would remind readers of
>this reply what she said.

	No reason why you can't. See /John's replies of today.


>I for one am unlikely to do this, because
>
>	(a) I don't know who they are;
>	(b) I just about have time to write this reply, but I do not have
>	    a week to spare emulating a private detective.
	
	If really interested send me mail I know a few names.

>	(c) They live on the other side of the Atlantic, so a quiet chat
>	    is pretty well ruled out;

	I had a quiet chat across the Atlantic just last week via a new tool
	in my office. Telephone I believe it's called.

>	(d) If we did have a quiet chat, it would be a CLM.
	
	You don't know that. I've had several such chats and it doesn't
	appear to have hurt my career yet. (Had to tell with out raises
	being give out. :-))


>But I don't like it, I'm not comfortable with it, I can't figure out what the
>implications will be, and so I want to talk it over with my colleagues. Maybe
>this isn't the right forum?

	Some of the people who write policy do from time to time read notes.
	Sometimes even HUMAN::DIGITAL. If you can say it here how is that
	different from a phone call or a mail message?

>	(b) Educating all managers and employees in the handling of Digital's
>	    information. You cannot fix a people problem by imposing rules.

	Education is a great idea. I believe that the Security people have
	been working like crazy to get people to understand and abide by
	distribution restrictions. Maybe when everyone understands why
	they're so important we will not have so many memos printed in 
	the Boston Globe and we can get back to business as usual.


			Alfred

    One of the new policies says that you cannot edit a memo of somebody
    else. It seems to be a matter of basic intellectual honesty.
    I cannot edit somebody else memo. I fully agree. It is a matter
    of fundamental intellectual honesty. 
    The discussion about the practical consequences is another story,
    but we should be able to finetune this policy as long as the basic
    concept is kept in mind.
    
    Now, I have a simple question triggered by the complementary aspect of
    this topic.
    
    Can I put into one of my memo a portion of a memo written by somebody else ?
    
    If "yes", it would mean that the text of a memo is more important than 
    its content... and that the fundamental concept of intellectual
    recognition is underused. 

    If "no", it means that that I cannot put my name on somebody else idea.
    Again, a matter of intellectual honesty.
    
    It seems that the answer should be "yes, with the mention of the
    name of the author".
    
    A ratehole, or a fundamental question. It is up to you to answer    !
    
    Thierry

Well, if this discussion is being listened to ...

First, "I told you so".  I believe we, the Digital community, allowed
certain abuses and excesses of our electronic media that lead to this.
But regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, it's under the damn now.

Second, the intent of the policy is fine.  The spirit of the policy
is fine.  But, the fundamental change it implies is not appreciated
(and was probably not intended) and the wording is, in my opinion,
simply not consistent with everyday business practices.

Electronic communication now subsumes such a signficant portion of
all of our communications that any fundamental change to our electronic
policies is a fundamental change to communications in toto.

The prevous policy, or at least common practice (and not just DEC), was:

	Everything generated internally is implicitly Digital
	Internal Use Only unless either explicitly stated otherwise
	or delivered through certain channels (like publications
	distributed to customers).

		> stating the obvious

	Everything else is implicitly available for distribution
	based upon common sense, unless explicitly labelled.

		> still stating the obvious

	"Common sense" meant things like understanding who your
	organization is and the general context of activities.
	Thus a memo about a product was assumed open to the project
	members unless said otherwise, or unless it obviously had
	a private or personal tone to it.  We all did this.  It
	was SOP at every company I've ever worked in, and in every
	social situation I've ever been in.

		> whether such a memo is distributed by hand,
		  Xerox copy, FAX, or electronic mail is, to me,
		  largely irrelevant.

		> WHO it is distributed to is ALWAYS relevant,
		  but rarely HOW.

Now, though, the defaults have changed.  That is quite a fundamental
change.  Suddenly things cannot be passed on without permission.
The concepts of editing, excerpting, and paraphrasing have suddenly
taken on a much greater importance.  Some will argue that these
rules are limited to "special" cases such as electronic mail forwarding
and notes posting.  But I submit that these are "normal business"
not special cases.  I forward more electronic mail and post more
notes everyday than I do any other kind of communication.  Electronics
have become the bread-and-water of communications in this company.

Paper (!) is now the "special case".  In fact I cringe slightly
whenever I get *anything* on paper, wishing instead that it was
electronic where I vest my best filing and distributing methods.

AGAIN --- I trust that these effects were not intended.  And the
policy was aimed at the abuses, excesses, and bad judgements of
the past.  But the words of the policy, separate from the intent,
unfortunately say something quite different.  And, most importantly,
explicitly change a fundamental default "show inititive" to "CYA".

That's real CYA I'm afraid.  Even if employees are expected to
continue using about the same common sense, even if the framers
thought the policy would impact only the disease, it is quite
different.  If I am to feel I am in even moderately rigourous
conformance I must now change my behavior significantly --- such
conformance would, and this is not an exaggeration, affect me
several times each day.

==================================================================

The policy has stumbled onto questions of "authorship" and "permisson"
that seem to ignore how a company, any company, really works.

When someone "high up" acts, that action often carries their
name.  When an opinion is personal, evocative, radical, emotional,
or controversial it often carries the author's name, and hence
some sense of "ownership" with it --- despite the "everything
belongs to DEC" paradigm.

When a comminique impacts the careers of employees directly
or substatively, it takes on an "official" nature that deserves
careful handling.

These are the kinds of things that need a policy, and I assume
are the real target of this action.  Again, I think that the
focus on "electronics" and "notes" and "mail" (and there's lots
more coming) will be demonstrated to be ill-considered.  We're
talking about communications here.  We've confused technology
with its use again; the bane of the technological revolution.

Now that I've discussed 10% of our communications, let's consider
the 90% --- what we do day-to-day.

We have conferences and mail where we constantly barrage one
another with words.  These words are part of the DEC collective
conciousness.  Authorship and ownership are sloughed off as
rapidly as we change our clothes.  Concenus emerges, as it is
intended to, from this rapid exchange and mixing of thoughts,
opinions, ideas, and contributions.  It is teamwork.  It is DEC.
This is, in my opinion, the primary reality.  NOT the occassional
sensitive missive nor offical declaration.

MOST, the overwhelming MOST, of this information does not require
preservation of authorship, sensitive handling, careful labelling,
explicit permissions.  Most of it, we all know, is boring, mundane,
exchange ... but still the stuff of daily life.   It does NOT
need this kind of control, and its free exchange will suffer from
it unless the policy is mostly ignored (which, in my opinion, it
will be 80% of the time or the whole system will collapse).

	NOTE: authors of the policy --- don't think I'm
	trivializing your intent.  I AM NOT.  I've always
	believed a policy with this _intent_ should exist.
	But it despartely needs to be complimented by a
	categorization of KINDS of information so that
	it is applied where it is need --- not just be an
	albotross to our daily venture.

So now we have a policy that significantly infringes on that
process and tradition.  Instead of open sharing of the bulk
of our gestalt, we have condomized communication to reduce
the spread of a disease, but at the cost of our fertility.

=========================

Do I sound like a flamer?  I do not intend to be.

Do I sound simply emotional and perhaps naive about the serious
problems before us?  Communications is so _fundamental_ to what
we do, the very fabric of our collective enterprise, that I find
this topic deserving of strong response.  The problems of electronic
communications are as important and serious as the need to keep
them working at their maximum effectiveness --- else we slip another
steep step into an uncompetitive morass.

Keep the intent, keep the spirit, keep a few of the words, but
re-write the darn thing to have some resemblence to the reality
of 90% of what we do, and what we must do to suceed.

- greg


ps: Now, must I label this such that y'all know whether you can
    forward it, for example, to the policy authors?

    If anyone is feeling feisty try sending them this note:

	"Wow, we've gotten over 900 interesting comments on
	the policy.  Unforunately, we cannot share them with
	you since most did not grant permission to do so.

	"We're sorry to hear that your captive ALL-IN-1
	account does not allow access to VAXnotes.  Perhaps
	your system manager can fix that, though she mumbled
	something about a system management policy."

Ok, ok, so the last paragraph is a cheap shot.  Still, I wish
people would think.

    Re .-1
    
    Wow sense at last. Greg, you seem to put into words what a lot of us
    were feeling and flaming about. You're a pretty high up influential
    manager. Any chance you can persuade the powers that be that this
    policy needs totally rewriting? You're dead right, if people follow
    the policy as written the whole company grinds to a halt. If they
    don't and just 'do the right thing', they open themselves up to
    some vindictive manager or beancounter who wants to do a number on
    them.
    
    I especially like your thoughts on ideas coming from sharing memos
    and information. A greater whole grows out of the sum of the pieces.
    
    Dave

    KO visited SPR last week, and at our branch turnout he emphasised
    certain things:
    
    Our culture must be based on trust.
    
    It must be kept simple, and not overburdened with regulations.  We must
    remain flexible, and this is achieved only by adhering to the spirit of
    Doing The Right Thing, instead of legislating what is The Right Thing. 
    This is because the further away from the real business of Digital (ie
    engineering and the field) the 'overhead people' are, the less they 
    really know about the real business of Digital.
    
    Seems to me someone in 'overhead' has tried to legislate what the Right
    Thing is, and got it wrong - again.

re: .44

>   You're a pretty high up influential manager.

I'm not very high nor very influential (but I am a little embarassed).

>   Any chance you can persuade the powers that be that this
>   policy needs totally rewriting?

If so I hope it occurs because some agree, and not because of any
position I might hold.

- greg

    re: .43 by STAR::ROBERT  "Safe" communications
    
    Bravo!  Your note really says it all.   Electronic communication
    is Digital's 'water cooler'.   Some of the most important discussions
    I have had in Digital were in the hallways.   We used to have a
    much different physical plant.   I remember tripping down crowded
    aisleways that held overflow from adjacent groups.   I remember
    seeing some new product on a bench or desk as I wandered around
    waiting for a meeting.
    
    Now you can go in the mill and walk a corridor its entire length
    and never see a person.   You can even get in a corridor where
    virtually every door has a combo lock on it.   New facilities
    are built with this sterile service aisle concept from the ground
    up.   I even know a plant where areas are delineated with fences
    of waist high pipe and interrupted periodically with hollow core
    doors containing $300.00 combo locks, bizarre.
    
    The end result of this heightened security paranoia is that the
    free flow of informal information paths (the only ones that work
    sometimes) is stifled.  All security can be breached!  The only
    variables to the breacher are the willingness to risk a breach and
    the time to peck away at the defenses.   For this reason I have
    always felt that the only effective security is to stay out in front
    of the pack far enough that the breachers can't use anything they
    get because their infrastructure is lagging ours.
    
    If you stifle communication internally you slow us to a point where
    the rest of the pack 'catches up'.   Our edge today is the electronic
    media that has surpassed the water cooler in effectiveness.  It
    can't be shut off without dire consequences.
    

If you've been at Digital long enough you'll recall that during some of our 
most successful years communication flowed freely from top to bottom and that
was when electronic mail was in its infancy as a communication medium within
the corporation. 

Its a shame that it all has to end, now, when we finally have the capability 
to reach practically every employee within hours.

There is now a big push to get employees "involved". Well, involved to me 
means informed and tuned in. I believe the risk of "leaks" is worth the 
benefits of keeping all of us informed as to the formal and INFORMAL thoughts 
of our leaders and their position on the important issues of the day. 

Jim

p.s.: I'm really out of touch; I only get the Boston Sunday Globe!

    There's a nice article on computer conferencing in DIGITAL in the
    latest issue of DECworld (February, 1989).  In the section entitled, "A
    moderator's perspective" is featured our own, illustrious Alred
    Thompson. ;^)
    
    Marge

    re: .49
    
    >moderator's perspective" is featured our own, illustrious ALRED
    >Thompson. ;^)
    
    Marge,
    
    That's probably the color of his face after your announcement here, but
    I'm not sure that is what his friends call him :-)
    
    Bob
    
    

    oops, sorry, Alfred... :^)
    
    thanks, Bob...
    
    Grins

    I'll be sure to miss that article.

    I have a question regarding the confidentiality concerning valuing
    differences notes files...
    Some of the Vod conferences are restricted because they deal with
    issues that are personal and sometimes very private.  For example the
    AA notesfile or perhaps Children of child abusers etc...  The reasoning
    behind the restrictions is to provide at least a modicum of
    confidentiality. Recently a member of one of these conferences called a
    meeting of a number of other members of such conference and included an
    outspoken person from digital who was clearly unsupportive of the group
    in question.  The reason was to "show how wrong that person was to cast
    judgment on this group of people."  Because the group in question was
    aware of this other persons non-Vod tirades in other conferences the
    person was introduced under an assumed name.  After a period of time
    the truth was brought out.  Unfortunately the meeting did not go quite
    as planned and no meeting of minds was reached.  The question is, did
    this person infringe upon the rights of the members of the Vod
    conference?  The response I received from the individual in question
    was. "the meeting was held in public place and as such the person could
    have encountered the group on his own..."  This sounds somewhat thin to
    me especially in light of the fact that the members didn't wear badges
    describing their connection to each other or to Digital.  I am of the
    firm belief that this was certainly not a very honorable thing to do
    but I am curios as to whether it is 'actionable'.  

Re: .53

I agree that the actions you described were unchivalrous, to say the least.
If I were homosexual, say, and participated in a members-only conference for
homosexuals, I'd expect my privacy to be respected.

What I don't understand, though, is that I thought that non-work related
conferences had to be open to everyone.  If there is a policy that allows
for restricted valuing differences conferences, then maybe that same policy
says that the anonimity of members of such conferences must be respected;
otherwise there is probably no recourse.

				-- Bob

    re.54
    
    So what you are saying is that if there is a confidentiality issue in a
    conference that is "members only" then divulgence of the membership
    list may result in removal from the conference but is not exactly
    against any Digital rule?   Is this the corporate policy or are you
    just speculating?
    
    greg

	The policy says that "conferences created to communicate matters of
	opinion and commen interests ... must be open to all employees." This
	does not mean that they can't be members only. Anyone who requests
	membership must be given it. Things start to get into grey areas
	when you talk about revolking membership.

	There is no policy, that I know of, that directly addresses Valuing
	Differences conferences. Policy 6.54 does talk about Noters using
	notes with in the spirit as well as letter of policy and to be
	consistant with the Company's values.

	Individual conferences can and do have policies that deal with
	confidentiality and the like. Breaking those rules may or may not
	be a violation of the letter of company policy. The policy does
	not say "thou shalt not publish the membership list of a restricted
	conference". There is an assumption on many peoples part that that
	publication would be wrong and a bad thing to do. Common sense tells
	one that printing a list of people who are members of a number of
	conferences on the net would not be nice. Such publication would
	open lots of people to second guessing and speculation that would
	not be fair or polite. To me that violates the spirit of the policy
	as it doesn't show respict for the individuals involved.

			Alfred

	

��    re.56
    I agree with you 100%.  However, how does personnel deal with issues
    where an employee claims to have had their confidentiality breached in
    some way shape or form that stems from the revelation that he is a
    member of a certain restricted conference.  and also I would value your
    comments on my original entry on the scenario where a non member who
    is not sympathetic is brought into the presences of a meeting of group
    from a restricted conference.

Re: .55

I was just speculating, based mostly on previous notes in this and other
conferences.  If you really want to know the rules you might want to talk to
personnel or your manager.

Unfortunately, it seems that in many cases if people choose to be obnoxious
there isn't much we can do about it.  Personally I'd avoid going the formal
complaint route if at all possible.  It sounds like someone made an error
in judgment which it is best to simply forget.  Another idea is to talk or
send mail to the person who invited the unwanted guest.

				-- Bob

				

    re.58  
    
    Thanks. I would like to say that I don't want to give anyone the
    impression that the group is an exclusionary one.  The group in
    questions is very open to new comers and welcomes people to join.
    In this case it was viewed by many as bringing an undercover KKK to a
    black civil rights meeting.   I don't think it will be necessary to
    bring this to the attention of personell but I was very curious as to
    what the policy is in this instance.  I must say it leaves me feeling a
    bit unsettled.
                       thanks for your input.
    
    greg

    re: .57
    
    It has been said many times before, and it bears repeating again,
    personel are MANAGEMENT consultants.  They do not ever, to my knowledge, 
    act autonomously.  Going to personnel with a complaint is a lot like 
    going first to the business office of a hospital with a broken arm. 
    You'll get plenty of sympathy, but if you want to get better you'll
    need to visit the emergency room. If action should ever need to be taken
    against an employee or group, personnel may give consultation but it  
    will always be a direct line manager who makes the decision.  
    
    As for confidentiality, one could make a strong case that as far as   
    Digital is concerned, employee confidentiality is limited to the data
    contained in your personnel file.  Although it might not be nice to
    reveal factual information an employee would prefer to remain private, 
    I'm not convinced it automatically requires intervention by Digital.
    
    Al
    

	RE: .53 I don't know if the actions described there are actional
	or not. I doubt that they are. Just becausse I can't find a line
	in policy or make an intrpritation of policy that makes it actionable
	doesn't mean that someone else with more imagaination can't though.

	It doesn't seem like a smart or honest thing to do though. I'm not in
	the least surprised that the meeting didn't work out well.

			Alfred

    Information that an employee would want to remain confidential doesn't
    belong in a Notes file, whether open or for members only, with the
    possible exception of the information's being posted anonymously under
    some VoD conferences' guidelines.
    
    This point has been made very graphically in one of the VoD notes files
    where one contributor suggested, "If you wouldn't put it in your
    resume, don't put it in a notes file."
    
    With the exception of some business-related files, Notes are, by
    company policy, open to all employees.  And while each file may
    publish its Rules for Conduct, their application is only as honorable
    as the participants in the file.
    
    It's best to be careful what you post, even in a members-only
    conference.
    
    Karen

Another thing to consider is that just the process of
taking a complaint like this through official channels
would probably result in far more unwanted publicity than anyone
may have received in one meeting.
Personnel will not take action without documented, concrete
details.  
My personal speculation is that there is not a strong enough
case that any rules were broken.

    I would agree with the statement that has been made repeatedly, namely,
    to show caution in what one writes.
    
    On the other hand, there's an element of courtesy and responsibility to
    others that can't be passed over simply because it's an artifact of
    VAX Notes that it has an "EXTRACT" command.
    
    Employees should be reprimanded or otherwise punished for causing
    distress or embarassment to other employees whether the medium is the
    spoken word, words on paper, words in electronic form, or a grunt in
    the hallway.
    
    If you start with the premise, that "It's Notes, and anything goes" then
    I suppose it will take some outrage that makes the pages of the Boston
    Globe to get some people to take heed of their responsibility.
    
    Respect for employees is paramount, quibbling over the interpretation
    of the Digital P&P is futile.