Conference 7.286::digital

    I read the memo also and (for once) there seemed to be some logic
    in it, i.e. investing $$ into account teams that working on projects
    that show an R.O.I.
    
    --David

    Would somebody who has a copy of the memo like to summarize it in a
    little more detail than is done in .0? It appears we are no longer
    allowed to post memos in this conference but it seems there is no rule
    against summarizing and paraphrasing information we receive in our day to
    day business. The disadvantage to this is that it opens things up
    to misinterpretation but I guess misinterpreted information is better
    than none at all. At least with some more information than is in .0 we
    could have a more focused discussion on the new organization structure.
    
    Dave

    "Summarizing and paraphrasing" mail instead of posting it is sure to
    cut down on rumors.  Sure.

Shall we assume Phil Mikebrook has permission from Dave Grainger to post this
here?

    If you assume that "Phil" is an informed and responsible adult, you
    should also assume that he has obtained the appropriate permission.

    	Well, until the moderators have actually confirmed that he 
    indeed has permission, the note will be hidden.

    Amy (co-mod )

I'm glad I took *my* snapshot a few minutes ago.
				/AHM

I suspect that if everyone who has a posting turned back for lack of
permissions contacts the original authors of widely distributed memos,
one of two things will happen:  Either they will get tired of the constant
interruptions and get the policy clarified right away, OR they will get
tired of the constant interruptions, and the supply of information will
dry up even more than it is now...

    This is getting out of hand (reconfirming of memos), exactly the other
    extreme from posting *ALL* memos indiscriminately. Let's try and think
    of a mechanism to get us somewhere in between. This is worst than
    shooting ourselves in the foot, its as good as chortling our own
    throats!
    
    Guess I propose something as a start:
    
    how about implementing some general category of audience where the memo
    writer can indicate its approximate desired distribution scope. similar
    to movie classes like GP, XXX,...(as you can see I don't watch much
    movies ;-) This will complement the security classification of
    *INTERNAL ONLY*, *DIGITAL CONFIDENTIAL*,...
    
    HW

    
  re .8:
    Are you then assuming that he is uninformed, or that he is not a
    responsible adult?

  Re .9:
    Good thinking! Can I get a copy? I promise I won't tell the network police
    or any conference moderators.

  Re .11:
    The rating system probably won't work. Well, at the very highest levels,
    maybe (sr mgr and up), but for the most part, you want to limit distribution
    based on organization rather than job status.

    The most straightforward approach is to clearly state your intended
    audience:


	Fred,     [distribution-note]

	This memo summarizes our meeting with regard to...


    where distribution-note is something like:

        do not forward  (default)
        distribute to direct reports
        unlimited distribution

    

    What if (and this is sheerly speculative) the authors of memos of deep
    interest to thousands of people in the company chose to post those
    memos in this and other appropriate conferences themselves?

	RE: .13 I guess one could ask, if these people wanted their memos
	posted in DIGITAL why don't they do so themselves? I mean shouldn't
	we assume that they know about the conference and how to use Notes?
	:-)

	RE: back a few: Assuming that anyone who posts a memo here has
	permission is an extreamly nieve thing to do. People who have 
	permission usualy say so. On the other hand the moderators of this
	conference and some posters have regularly recieved calls over
	the last few years from people saying that their memo was not
	meant for widespread distribution and would something be done
	about it. Call me silly but after enough calls from VPs and up
	I start to get a cirtian message. That message is that a lot of
	people don't know how to handle information and that other people
	expect me to "help out". Now you and I may know that the right
	answer is for people to tell people what the right distribution
	is but others are assuming that people already know. All these
	assumptions are making "asses" out of a lot of people.

				Alfred

    Re:  the original topic
    
    Ok, so we can't post the #$%^&* memo, so can someone please summarize
    it for us?
    
    Re:  the ongoing flap
    
    I'm beginning to wonder if the only use left for the Digital Notesfile
    is to "announce" reception of memos or other important info, so the
    rest of us can deluge the author of the note with requests by private
    mail.  We need to add to VAXNOTES a key (like the ADD conference key)
    that will allow 'noters to append their names to a distribution list
    at the authors' end for automatic reception of material by mail.  And
    I can already see a revitalization of VAXMAIL hacks and customizations
    to take up the slack.
    
    Demand adherence to the letter of the law, and that's probably what
    you will get, even if everyone loses something in the process ...
    
    Geoff

    My management chain held a conference call informing us that a memo was
    coming. Further they made sure that when the memo came out, it was
    forwarded to us immediately. We were instructed to make sure that we
    forwarded the memo to our direct reports and discuss it.
    
    My impression was that senior management WANTS to have this publicized
    within the company. KO, DG, et. al. want us all to undertand the
    direction of the field so that we can interact with them appropriately.
    
    I don't understand the grave concern over posting the memo here based on
    my personal experience and comments from my management. Of course,
    others who don't have my personal experience obviously have their
    reasons for hiding it. I guess I can understand that position, but I
    really don't think the "authors" would give a rats hind quarters if
    this memo made the rounds.
    
    /se
    

    The way I see it, there are several classifications:

	1) Who cares who finds out?

	   This information can be distributed outside the corporation.

	2) INTERNAL (as per Personnel Policy and procedures)

	   This information can be distributed to Digital employees.

	3) CONFIDENTIAL

	   Distributed on limited need to know, not material for conferences
	   or mass forwarding.

	4) RESTICTED

	   Distributes on absolute need to know, not stuff you leave out on
	   your desk or read where someone can peek over your shoulder.

	5) PERSONAL

	   Same as 4, but deals with personal employee data.

The problem is, WHAT'S THE DEFAULT?

1? Then print it and give it to your friends.
2? Then you can note and forward.
3? Then you talk to the person who sent you the memo first.
4? Then you talk to the person who wrote the memo first.
5? You never even got it.

We seem to be saying that the "default" is assumed to be 4). That's fine.
That should just be clearly articulated, as in:

	"All internal correspondence, unless indicated to the contrary,
	must be handled in accordance with Digital policy regarding
	"DIGITAL RESTRICTED" category materials."

/Peters

	Dave Grainger sent out the memo over a week ago (21-Sep). If
	you are affected and haven't heard from your management than you
	have a lot bigger problem than you think if all you're worried
	about is seeing it published in HUMAN::DIGITAL. If a week after
	the memo is out you haven't heard about it from management than
	that means that someone in your management chain is not doing
	their job. That would scare me a lot.

	So don't complain about memo appearing or not here. Complain
	about you management not telling you. Let's try and fix these
	problems and not just bandaid around them. If you're in the field
	and haven't seen this memo please go and ask your manager why not.
	Then post their reply. Now that should make interesting reading.

			Alfred

	PS: If Dave Grainger, KO et all don't mind if the memo is posted
	then why haven't they told someone who asked them about it to go
	a head and post it?

    
     >> Ref: Note 935.18 by CVG::THOMPSON "My friends call me Alfred"
    
     >> So don't complain about memo appearing or not here. Complain
	about you management not telling you. Let's try and fix these
	problems and not just bandaid around them. If you're in the field
	and haven't seen this memo please go and ask your manager why not.
    
    The inference of your comment is that employees can affect change
    in the operating style of professional bureaucrats who think employees
    have no intelligence and must be "managed" which includes the control
    of information, upward, downward and laterally.
    
    I submit that real change can only come from Uncle Ken via the action
    of making pivotal changes in hardline personnel and management
    practices that will eliminate bureaucrats and bureaucracy at the core.
    
    As to what pivotal changes can be made, I would certainly argue they
    would have to be something radically different from traditional U.S.
    historic and business school thinking.
    
    Having such a belief, I created my written opinion of a list of such
    pivotal changes (which I won't bother listing here) that I submitted
    for consideration, to both the person driving the EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT
    PROGRAM as well as to the only known EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION BOX, which is
    in Europe (anyone wanting a copy of what I submitted can send me an
    electronic memo, DAVID CARNELL @ALF or ODIXIE::CARNELL or
    DIXIE1::CARNELL
    
    Regards
    

re .16:

I hope the original authors of the memo gave their explicit permission for it
to be forwarded to each of you. Otherwise your managers would have been breaking
the rule laid down in 934.0.

/Tom

No, Tom.  The rule in 934.0 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.

/john

re:< Note 935.18 by CVG::THOMPSON "My friends call me Alfred" > >
-< what's the real problem? >- 

> ... If a week after the memo is out you haven't heard about it from
>management than that means that someone in your management chain is not doing
>their job. That would scare me a lot. 
        
>...Let's try and fix these problems and not just bandaid around them. If
>you're in the field and haven't seen this memo please go and ask your manager
>why not. 

Alfred, I agree that the real problem needing to be fixed is that the
communications channels are badly broken and we need to get the managers
between DG et al and myself to be more forthcoming with information.  I
am working on this currently.  However, what I would like you to explain,
is how I am to know there is a problem if I never see the memo in another
medium?  How can I know that I haven't gotten a memo if I don't know there
is a memo to get?

Kevin

PS 
I am taking the liberty of trusting John Covert's statements regarding
quoting replies in the same conference.

    My original question in .0 was whether such a fundamental reorg can be
    limited in scope to the US only. How will that tie in with accounts in
    Europe and GIA?
    
    HW