Conference 7.286::digital

>    The new rules in Digital requiring author permission to forward either
>    memos or VAXnotes replies ...

T H E R E   I S   N O   R U L E   R E Q U I R I N G   P E R M I S S I O N  T O

			      F O R W A R D .

The rule only requires permission before posting in a VAXnotes Conference, and
permission is only required if the item originated as a mail or VAXnotes message
within Digital.

/john

    
    Ref: .1
    
    Hmmm.  Guess we all need to carry an Orangebook around with us. 
    Several people I know were being told, and under the impression, that
    one had to have permission to forward via electronic mail another
    person's memos.  This becomes a panic when people are trying to
    brainstorm ideas as a group, and communication comes in outside group
    discussion, questionning one's right to share memo information without
    explicit written permission.
    
    Am I a victim of FUD -- fear, uncertainty and doubt?
    
    Still, if an issue is raised in a VAXnotes conference, but the person
    giving an answer, or justification, does NOT want all members of the
    conference to know the answer, especially related to an idea for
    change, should the author have the right to keep his or her memo OUT of
    said VAXnotes conference.  Why should not the group have the right in
    an open Digital society to see the words first hand and not
    paraphrased?
    
    I guess I'll stand on my suggestion to ban the new rule, however it
    reads.
    
    

re Note 1007.2 by ODIXIE::CARNELL:

>     Several people I know were being told, and under the impression, that
>     one had to have permission to forward via electronic mail another
>     person's memos.  This becomes a panic when people are trying to
>     brainstorm ideas as a group, and communication comes in outside group
>     discussion, questioning one's right to share memo information without
>     explicit written permission.
  
        I can see where the confusion might come in.  Before we had
        Notes, it was rather common to have discussions among groups
        of people by using mail distribution lists, and forwarding
        any given statement or comment to everybody else on this
        list.  This is very much like an awkward
        restricted-membership conference.  Of course the big
        difference comes with open-membership conferences.

        Bob

    RE .0, .1 -- However, there ARE rules on forwarding messages that contain
    various security classifications (Digital Internal Use Only, Digital
    Confidential, etc.).

							-- Nina

    Rule or no rule I will continue to forward mail messages that I receive
    and notes I find in unrestricted conferences if I think it is the right
    thing to do. I also will only ask the authors permission if I believe
    it is necessary. No point in making up a clogged up system any more
    clogged up.
    
    I'll let you know if this ever causes me any trouble. I hope others
    don't let silly rules get in the way of getting real work done either.
    
    Obviously I will not forward something when I have been explicitly
    asked not to by the sender, or if I believe that it would not be in the
    best interest of Digital to do so.
    
    Sometimes I wonder if those making policy think they're running a high
    school.
    
    Dave 

    Echoing John's earlier reply, the "rule" discussed is not a rule at
    all, it's folklore.
    
    Obtaining the permission of an author before forwarding is still a
    matter of courtesy.
    
    The rule is that one must obtain the permission of the original
    author before entering mail or a note into a VAX Notes Conference.
    
    That's the rule, ORANGEBOOK (6.54), and I consider it a good one:  The
    original author chose the audience for the material, if he or she
    wanted to put into a Digital-wide conference, then that decision should
    remain with the original author.

    RE: .2 When I answer a Note by mail it is because I believe there
    is a good reason for *not* posting it. If I can't rely on people
    to respect that than I'll just have to be less helpful. Is that
    what you want?
    
    RE: .4 (I think) and the High School comment.
    
    Picture a memo labeled "Restricted Distribution". When that memo
    repeatedly gets posted with label intact in a number of "open"
    conferences than yes I'd have to say we've got a lot of people
    who need things spelled out in tiny words. It has happened here.
    
    		Alfred

	Why not implement a new feature in VAXnotes to solve the problem
    of limiting distribution of certain notes.  How about a new VAXnotes
    command qualifier which would prevent a note from being extracted by
    anyone other than the author of the note:

NOTES> SET NOTE /NOEXTRACT

	In addition, the note could appear on the screen automatically marked
    with a little blurb warning people not to distribute it as well (to avoid
    confusion).  The default would simply be the way it is now (any notes not
    marked with the /NOEXTRACT qualifier would be extractable and free from
    such a rule).

	Obviously, there would be ways around this (i.e. people could simply
    perform screen captures of the /NOEXTRACT note in question to create a
    file containing the text, etc.), but if implemented properly, even a
    screen capture would be marked as well to remind the note extracter of
    the non-public nature of the particular note.  This would function similar
    to the brief FBI warnings on rented video tapes in that one can easily
    skip that portion of the tape when and if they were to attempt to illegally
    duplicate the tape for resale, but at least it is quite obvious that such
    a practice is against the rules.

				    -davo

	RE: .8 This idea has been repeatedly discussed in the various
	VAXNOTES product conferences. It is actually easier to get around
	then you may be aware of. SET HOST/LOG for one. Logging activity
	to a file in a PC for an other. It leads to a false sense of
	security. See CLT::VAXNOTES_WISHLIST. I'm sure there are volumes
	on the subject there.

	The real answer is for people to be aware of what they are doing.
	Not everything is appropriate for everyone in the company to know
	about. Even more, not everything that is appropriate for employees
	is appropriate to have printed in the BOSTON GLOBE of DIGITAL REVIEW.
	As long as we have people who like to show off what they know to the
	Press we'll have to keep a litle tighter rein on information than
	we could in an ideal world.

			Alfred

    I will attempt to clarify what I suspect was the reason for the
    original topic:

    Dave is maintainer of the ALF-campus wide (actually larger) open- 
    membership mail distribution list called CIDNI (Creative Interactive 
    Dialogue of New Ideas).  There was an incident where, after a fire
    drill, Dave sent mail via this distribution list calling attention to
    a potential fire hazard.  

    Having read Dave's memo because they were on the CIDNI distribution
    list, a facility manager replied to Dave directly (via mail).  The mail
    basically said the issue would be addressed but, in addition, called
    attention that professional descretion should be used before sending
    alarming messages thru an expanding distribution list.  Apparently
    proper channels for addressing an issue of this nature had not been
    followed (nor attempted).  
    
    Dave subsequently posted this mail thru his distribution list with a
    further reply to the manager -- in essence carrying the conversation
    into a group discussion.  I sent mail to Dave mentioning that I hoped
    he'd received permission to  post this mail as I believed it was
    against ORANGEBOOK policy to do so without permission.  It appears my
    interpretation of the policy (as I recall it) was incorrect.

    My personal opinion:  Distribution of mail messages via an expanded 
    distribution list should be subject to the same policies as for any
    VAXnotes conference.
    
    -Andy

Define "expanded."  I didn't think you could.  Thus it's not part of the policy.

    A message sent by even a large mailing list can be far more effectively
    "followed up" with a correction than material written into a VAX Notes
    Conference.  The crucial element of difference is the control over
    distribution.

    In the not too distant past I wrote a memo to one person outlining my
    feelings on what was going on within DEC at the grass roots level. 
    This person read my memo, and forwarded it to a bunch of people he knew
    (at a very high level). He wrote me a note informing me that he had
    "enjoyed my comments and forwarded them on to others " further
    indicating he had removed all references to my name so that the memo
    couldn't be traced back to me.
    
    Much to my surprise, within a week, the text of my memo was posted in
    this very notes file by someone I had never heard of. (Probably a
    direct report of a direct report of a senior manager my friend knew).
    
    I was shocked.
    
    After thinking about it for a while, and realizing that it couldn't be
    traced back to me I finally decided that it was "OK" for it to be in
    the notes file. However, if my name had NOT been removed, and this
    person had just forwarded it on, I would have been quite ripped if it
    had appeared in this conference without my approval.
    
    My intent in sending it to my friend was to reply to a question he
    asked me. My itent in writing the document was clearly not for public
    consumption. Although I made no reference to that in my memo ("For Your
    Eyes Only" or something like that) I did not expect to see it in a
    public notes file.
    
    Since that time, I have sometimes used the following text on memos that
    I do not want to get "bounced around":
    
    ***********************************************************
          
    NOTE: 
          
    The contents of this memo are intended for the original  addressees on
    the Distribution List. It is the author's  intent that this memo go to
    those recipients, and ONLY those  recipients. Do not print, copy for
    distribution, or forward this memo without the author's  permission. To
    do so is a violation of Corporate Policy.
          
    ************************************************************
     
    I feel like an idiot when I put this on a memo (not my style), but this
    one incident made me a little gun shy!
    
    I hate the "rules and red tape", so I can concur with .0's feelings to
    a large extent. However, if I write a note to a friend saying that I
    think "Joe Blow, the Vice President of Mumbleraz is a flaming idiot" I
    think that I would like to have some level of confidence that this
    information was intended to go only to my friend. I hate the thought of
    putting a silly nondisclaimer on all my memos so they won't get
    forwarded (I call a LOT of people flaming idiots in my memos sometimes).
    
    ;^)
    
    /se
    
    

>To do so is a violation of Corporate Policy.

Although true in any case for posting in VAXnotes conferences, unless the
material in your memo justifies restricted distribution, you cannot label
it as such.  It belongs to the company (even though you are _responsible_
for its contents) and can be forwarded (only with your name still attached)
to any internal distribution list.

/john

    Re .13
    
    If you are willing to call somebody a flaming idiot in a mail message
    you send to X but you are not willing to have the target of your
    criticism see your comment then in my view your comment is worthless
    bunk.
    
    Basically if a statement can't stand up to public scrutiny then its
    not worth saying.
    
    Dave

    RE .13: ("Secrecy is used to veil incompetence and hipshooters")

    Well, if the shoe fits, by all means slip it on, but don't try to
    squeeze us all into it.

      Me: "I think Joe in marketing pulled a real bonehead blunder, and we
      should do something about it."

      Boss: "Yeah, it looks bad, but I happen to know that he was caught in
      a tough situation and really had no other choice. Steer him right, but
      be gentle."

      Me: "Hey Joe, I heard you had a tough time with that last proposal. It
      may have come off a little better if you had..."

    I submit that the resulting message to Joe was much more appropriate,
    based as it was on additional information unavailable to me at the time
    of my first statement, and that if my boss had forwarded my
    first statement to Joe unedited, he would have done a great disservice
    all around. If you see that as a veil for incompetence and
    hip-shooting, I must remind myself never to communicate with you
    directly in _any_ medium.

    I further submit that if you took the time to sanitize every statement
    you ever made to be appropriate in any possible forum, you would be
    immediately and irrevokably struck dumb.
    
    ------------------
    
    On the broader question, the author of the base note seems to have turned
    a minor faux pas into a major breach of common sense and courtesy by
    flagrantly ignoring the advice of the facility manager. His ignorance of
    the existing policy, coupled with a weak rebuttal to resist it "however
    it reads" (.2), causes me to place little weight on his opinion. The
    policy is not an undue constraint on the free flow of information, and
    it should stand as is.
    

Re .14:

>... unless the material in your memo justifies restricted distribution, ...

(Or perhaps Digital Personal).

Since the *originator* is responsible for classifying information, people can
apparently exercise almost absolute control on almost anything they write, if
they are really that desperate.  Has anyone ever been disciplined for
classifying a document *too* highly?  (Gotta fulfil your fiduciary duties to
the corporation, ya know).
				/AHM

    REF   <<< Note 1007.16 by ESCROW::KILGORE "Wild Bill" >>>

    >><<On the broader question, the author of the base note seems to have turned
    a minor faux pas into a major breach of common sense and courtesy by
    flagrantly ignoring the advice of the facility manager. His ignorance of
    the existing policy, coupled with a weak rebuttal to resist it "however
    it reads" (.2), causes me to place little weight on his opinion. The
    policy is not an undue constraint on the free flow of information, and
    it should stand as is.>>
    
    Not quite.  In our CIDNI Group at ALF, an open forum for free
    expression of ideas (see note 1009 for concept), I submitted an idea. 
    The manager to whom the idea happened to come under sent me a private
    memo indicating action would be taken to review the idea.  The manager
    also said I should follow the rules of professional courtesy,
    submitting my idea through proper channels first, before raising
    alarming issues (my idea had to do with doors at the bottom of
    stairwells opening inward instead of outward to ensure people could get
    out in case of fire).
    
    I felt the group HAD THE RIGHT to the contents of that private response
    because part of the memo addressed an idea owned by the forum.  Let the
    light of day see the ownership to whom new ideas affect, and the
    justification of why any idea is not implemented!  This nurtures
    creativity and growth and a more successful Digital.
    
    And attention and implementation.
    
    The other part of the memo to me was on whether or not a brainstorming
    group devoted to open, free expression of ideas to build a better and
    more successful Digital and/or local facility were required to work any
    issue and idea through proper channels FIRST, following the "rules" of
    professional courtesy, before posting an idea for group attention.
    
    I say NO!  Plus I argue that such dialogue from the manager direct
    personally to the creator of an idea should not have been sent (it
    intimidates creativity with FUD factor); and if it is sent, it should
    be posted for the light of day, which I did.  The majority of members
    who spoke up (I asked what the group thought) agreed that no-one should
    be required to pre-judge, self-censure, work channels, follow protocols
    and be intimidated to freely and openly discuss ideas AND CONCERNS in a
    group devoted to free expression of ideas and constructive change,
    allowing and encouraging  positive and negative discussion.  The
    manager should have sent her opinions direct to the group, not direct
    to me.  Let the group decide and end needless bureaucracy and "rules"
    before anyone is allowed to speak!
    
    The manager and I had a couple of telephone conversations and agreed we
    disagreed on philosophy.  There is no issue with me and this manager as
    we have agreed to go on from here.
    
    But if another manager sends me a similar memo, I will again share it
    with CIDNI.
    
    The secrecy issue came when the FUD factor (fear, uncertainty and doubt
    of free communication) came up when I was informed BY ANOTHER PERSON I
    may be violated personnel policies.  I see that person owned up to that
    action here, which was not required nor solicited by me, and I commend
    the action! (call me and I'll buy you coffee).
    
    Thus, being spurred to further thinking about what further impedes
    employee involvement I came to believe it is the secrecy that surrounds
    the presentation and rejection of ideas for change.  Ban it, I cry! 
    Let the light of day, in open CIDNI facility teams, see ALL new ideas
    and concerns and suggested changes, and let the group decide
    intuitively what ideas are good for building a better and more
    successful Digital, and drive the good ones into reality accordingly.
    
    Secrecy does nothing for the betterment of Digital.
    

>    Basically if a statement can't stand up to public scrutiny then its
>    not worth saying.

    I write differently for different audiences. This is something I was
    told was good. What your statement appears to be saying is that
    everything I write must be written for the whole world to see. This
    strikes me as somewhat silly. When I write to one person or group I
    can often assume some common understanding. This allows me to say
    some things more directly and efficiently. Someone outside that group
    may misunderstand that memo and come to a wild conclusion. For that
    reason I prefer people not randomly forward my mail. Communication
    would be considerably hindered if I had to write every mail message
    as if the receiver had no idea what it was about.

    			Alfred

    Re .-1
    
>    For that
>    reason I prefer people not randomly forward my mail. Communication
>    would be considerably hindered if I had to write every mail message
>    as if the receiver had no idea what it was about
    
    I think communication is needlessly hindered if I am expected to
    exchange a mail message with an author of a previous mail message
    before I can share the contents of that mail message.
    
    Let's look at a possible example. Let's say I'm working on a product
    that uses  the BLISS compiler. I find a problem with it and fire off a
    message to somebody I know in BLISSland. They send me a mail message
    telling me how to get around the problem I was having. I file that mail
    message in my BLISS folder for future reference. 2 weeks, 6 months
    or whatever later I'm in the cafe talking to my mate who works on
    another project. He says:
    
    	"hey Dave I've really hit a brick wall with this, I can't get BLISS
         to do such and such and we have a code freeze tomorrow. Got any
         ideas your group works a lot with BLISS."
    
    I say: "I vaguely remember having that problem, I think I've got this
    mail message somewhere telling me how to work around that problem,
    I'll see if I can dig it up after lunch."
    
    I go back to my office and look in my BLISS folder. I find the mail
    message that was sent to me and I WOULD immediately forward it off to
    my mate.
    
    Now I presume you would expect me to spend half an afternoon tracking
    you down to find out if I can forward your mail message that you've
    probably forgotten that you've written anyway. Yes protocol has
    been served but let's see what happens:
    
    	a) My mate misses his code freeze deadline.
    	b) I've needlessly wasted my time.
    	c) I've needlessly bothered you.
    
    No thanks I've got better things to do.
    
    Now if someone explicitly asks me not to forward a mail message I
    won't, that is their right and I will always respect it. But with
    ALL other mail messages I will use MY judgement as to what to do
    with it. I firmly believe that oncew information is shared with me
    it is my decision as to what I do with it.
    
    Obviously if I make a lot of boneheaded decisions people won't talk to
    me any more, so I just try and use good judgement to make things
    run as efficiently as possible.
    
    Now let me give you another example of why not sharing information is
    not a good idea.
    
    I understand that there is a memo that was recently issued by some high
    level exec in the SE SWS area that instructed SWS people to use
    notesfiles as a first level source of information. What I want to know
    is exactly how much is first level and what was said in that memo.
    That would help me set the right tone in the product notesfile that I
    moderate.
    
    Not so long ago it would have been posted here sooner or later so that
    people could use the information in it. With the new KGB secrecy
    policies I haven't been able to obtain a copy of that memo.
    Consequently I can not do the right thing as far as my notesfile is
    concerned.
    
    Excessive secrecy will kill this company, perhaps it already has.
    I noticed Q2 PRODUCT REVENUE (as against TOTAL REVENUE) was down for
    the first time ever.
    
    Some of the people that are firmly entrenched in the bureaucratic way
    of doing things should take a sabbatical at a small innovative startup
    company and they may begin to undertstand why DEC can't get out of its
    own way.
    
    Dave
    

You should be able to get a copy of the memo sent to you by mail by asking
one of the people who (from the discussion) obviously has a copy to send it
to you.

Too bad it's not possible to post it without permission any more.

/john

    Re .-1
    
    I've tried that route but unfortunately those people appear to be afraid
    of big brother kneeing them in the groin. Or at least that is my
    impression.
    
    Dave
    
    PS I would be eternally grateful to anyone who who would be kind enough
       to forward me the memo. You can even attach a 'Do Not Forward'
       request if you so wish, which of course I would abide by.
    

    
>    If you are willing to call somebody a flaming idiot in a mail message
>    you send to X but you are not willing to have the target of your
>    criticism see your comment then in my view your comment is worthless
>    bunk.
 
    If I ever DID call anyone a flaming idiot in a mail message, I would
    have no problem calling them that to their face. However, the real
    truth is I really don't make such statements via mail, and am somewhat
    disappointed with myself for not placing the  ";^)" closer to that
    statement rather than at the end of the memo, indicating facetious
    intent. 
    
    Perhaps I should also kick myself for picking that example, but my
    overall attitude still prevails:

    I perceive a difference between sending an acquaintance a note
    intended for their personal consumption and writing documents for
    "world wide consumption".  The style I use is different, the attention
    to detail is different, and my intent may differ for both audience.
    
    Sorry if I upset your applecart.
    
    

I don't think personal mail is the problem here. It's the "middle 
management" messages which convey goals, objectives, guidelines and rules 
which we all need to know. The author's, for some reason, are afraid to 
have their messages posted in VAXnotes. Perhaps, because of the critical 
scrutiny all such messages get?  Perhaps, because they have no oppurtunity 
to address questions or answer critisms when they are posted in various 
(sometimes numerous) conferences, of which they are unaware?

I say get rid of the rule and then people will either be more careful about 
what they say in memos or will post "please do not forward, copy or 
reproduce in any way" on the top.

Dave.