Conference 7.286::digital

If I might, please, I have another question regarding the Glover-Sims memo.

I find the memo posted as 1.11 in this conference (i.e Conference Policy).
The memo specifically is directed at Employee Interest Conferences. For
years I have staunchly defended the DIGITAL conference as specifically
_NOT_ an employee interest conference but rather very specifically and
categorically a work related conference. As such it would seem that the
memo has little bearing on this conference.

So, what I want to know is - Is this an employee interest conference
or a work related conference?

Thankyou,
-Jack

    Well, EASYNOTES.LIS lists it under "Other Work-Related Subjects"

    The categorization in EASYNOTES.LIS has no official status and no
    policy implications.
    
    The DIGITAL conference has been an employee-interest conference from
    day 1 in that matters of opinion and common interests are expressed
    here.

    Those who espouse outrageous or vicious opinions do not always merit
    reply. Whether they are saying something just to stir you up, or because
    they genuinely believe it, sometimes the best response is no response.
    Don't dignify it with an answer. We are always moved by the urge to
    defend ourselves when attacked, but there is nothing wrong with ignoring
    an empty challenge. Let those who make personal attacks shout into the
    emptiness. A discerning and intelligent audience such as I hope we have
    here will judge for itself who is the victim and who is the victimizer.
    
    If you are concerned that your silence might imply that you condone those
    opinions, but you feel that any response would just evoke personal
    attack, you can reply with:

	The opinions expressed in note x are the opinions of one individual
	and do not necessarily represent the opinions of other participants
	in this conference.

    This is a rather lifeless rebuttal, but it dispassionately establishes
    that there is a dissenting opinion. Real replies are much better when
    intelligent discourse is possible, but sometimes discussion has no hope
    but to descend to the level of "Jane, you ignorant..." If someone is
    really interested in talking about it, they will invite you to express
    yourself.
    
    Communication is a powerful weapon. That's why repressive regimes always
    seek to halt or control the free flow of communication. It can be used
    to integrate individuals into society, or to lock them out of it, so use
    it wisely, even if others don't.

    Steve
    (These are the opinions of one individual and do not necessarily
    represent the opinions of other participants in this conference. Feel
    free to ignore them.)

    
re: .1
    << So, what I want to know is - Is this an employee interest conference
    << or a work related conference?
    
    What difference does it make? (within the context of the base note)
    
    I can hardly imagine that Sim's statement of appropriate behavior in
    employee interest notes was meant to imply that such behavior is okay
    in work-related confereces. 
    
    	/Marvin

re: .3, Pat

>                                 -< Again... >-

Does this indicate I can find reference to this status elsewhere, Pat?

>    The categorization in EASYNOTES.LIS has no official status and no
>    policy implications.

I recognize this. (And I recognize it was directed more in response to .2.)
    
>    The DIGITAL conference has been an employee-interest conference from
>    day 1 in that matters of opinion and common interests are expressed
>    here.

I note that you are not a moderator of this conference, Pat. Should I
conclude that the above statement is your personal opinion or the
"official" opinion of this conference? I moderate the VAX DOCUMENT
conference and, believe me, "matters of opinion and common interests
are expressed" there as well. Nevertheless, that is specifically _NOT_
an employee interest conference, and _is_ specifically a work related
conference.

Which leads me to -

re: .5, /Marvin

>    What difference does it make? (within the context of the base note)

The difference (to me at least) is along several lines -

1) The Sims' memo makes specific reminders about participation in "Employee
   Interest Conferences" on other than "work" time. I would specifically
   like to understand if that applies to the DIGITAL conference. One reason
   I'm interested in knowing this is to satisfy the questions posed to me by
   some of my direct reports with respect to whether or not, theoretically,
   someone could "make a stink" because they entered notes in DIGITAL.NOTE
   during "work" time.

and, perhaps more importantly,

2) The memo's presence here as the base note is of no concern to me regarding
   the issue (it is, after all, part of "the way we work at DIGITAL.) That's
   why I mentioned in .1 that it is also posted in 1.11 as (I would assume)
   part of this conference' formal policy. Of course I believe that the spirit
   of the memo extends to work related conferences, but given the flimsy
   way things are interpreted at DEC these days I wanted to know if we
   could get a specific answer as to whether or not the intent of the memo
   was directed (in _all_ of it's dimensions) at other than Employee Interest
   Conferences. One easy way of doing this would be to specify that this either
   is, or is not, such a conference. And I think we don't need to bother
   Ron Glover or John Sims for that answer.

-Jack

re: .6,

>1) The Sims' memo makes specific reminders about participation in "Employee
>   Interest Conferences" on other than "work" time. I would specifically
>   like to understand if that applies to the DIGITAL conference. One reason
>   I'm interested in knowing this is to satisfy the questions posed to me by
>   some of my direct reports with respect to whether or not, theoretically,
>   someone could "make a stink" because they entered notes in DIGITAL.NOTE
>   during "work" time.

    	As a wage class 4 employee (who doesn't have the added benefit
    of charging overtime and such) I would think that there is no such
    thing as "work time" per se.  Instead, the performance of many WC4
    employees are *presumably* managed based primarily on projects, status
    reports, and other such concepts (none of which are exactly turned on
    at 9 AM and off at 5 PM).  In this light, I presume that (for WC4
    anyway) the memo was directed more at the spirit of work time than
    at a specific time block.  If I'm wrong, then I'd like to know where
    the punch clock is because I sure put in some late hours around here!

>2) The memo's presence here as the base note is of no concern to me regarding
>   the issue (it is, after all, part of "the way we work at DIGITAL.) That's
>   why I mentioned in .1 that it is also posted in 1.11 as (I would assume)
>   part of this conference' formal policy. Of course I believe that the spirit
>   of the memo extends to work related conferences, but given the flimsy
>   way things are interpreted at DEC these days I wanted to know if we
>   could get a specific answer as to whether or not the intent of the memo
>   was directed (in _all_ of it's dimensions) at other than Employee Interest
>   Conferences. One easy way of doing this would be to specify that this either
>   is, or is not, such a conference. And I think we don't need to bother
>   Ron Glover or John Sims for that answer.

    	In general, I view the memo as a management license to do pretty
    much whatever they please with employees based on what they write in
    these notesfiles (including outright termination).  This trend is very
    unnerving as I feel that arbitrary rules such as these do not bode
    well for the sort of departmental computing which is Digital's bread
    and butter.  In other words, *if* the idea behind these rules is to
    clamp down on employee noting, then I predict the result will be that
    people will shy away from noting in company owned notesfiles, as well
    as time sharing systems altogether.  The ultimate result of that trend
    would be a general shift away from our own time-sharing market space
    by [DEC] employees and towards the personal computer space (in which 
    the user is less hampered by such big brotherism).

    				  -davo

    RE: .6 Gee, Jack, I had the DOCUMENT conference in one of  the
    recreation groups in my notebook for years. :-) Until I started
    needing it to actually do my job.

     Seriously though I have a far out definition of a work related
    conference. If the information in it is needed to do my job it's
    work related. If not then it's employee interest. Of course that
    makes the determination someone individual specific. But than that's
    reasonable isn't it? Sure the RSTS conference is work related for
    a whole lot of people who develop and support RSTS but how do I,
    who hasn't even logged  in to a RSTS system in 7 years, justify
    spending time reading it to my boss?

    Some people have a different definition. I don't believe there is
    an official one. I have heard senior Digital managers disagree on
    the nature of this conference. Work related or employee interest
    I don't know. My boss, last time we talked, said it was employee
    interest. So to continue in the salary continuation plan that's 
    how I treat it. I used to maintain that it was work related but
    have since changed my definition of work related. If I had a different
    boss I might use their definition though. :-)

    As to "work time" that's pretty negotiable isn't it? If I have a build
    going on now in a sub job am I in work time even though it's 20:30?

    			Alfred

re: .-1, Alfred

Well, then maybe the distinction (between "work related" and "employee
interest" conferences) _IS_ immaterial and irrelevent. If that's the case,
then let's drop the distinction altogether. The question still remains
as to whether or not the Glover-Sims memo (which specifically discusses
"Employee Interest Conferences") is meant to address one, the
other, or both. If there are areas of the memo that don't apply to
both, I'd like to see that spelled out. If it's more expeditious to
define which conferences are targetted, then I'll accept that.

One thing I believe DEC has always been good at in most of the last 14+
years that I've been here, is in making it clear what's right and what's
wrong. We seem to have entered an age of ambiguity. But I digress.

Why is it so hard to get an answer in this company anymore?

-Jack

    Oh for God's sake, it's easy.
    
    If you're reading a notes file in the office, and you wouldn't
    have a good answer if your boss asked "why are you doing that
    now?", then you probably shouldn't be doing it instead of
    whatever it is you're supposed to be doing.
    

    I really, truly hope that the corporate culture that encourages
    professional behavior and personal motivation, the kind that causes me
    to regularly stay at work until 7-8PM rather than leave at 5:30,
    will see fit to understand that I also watch a few notes files during
    the 8:30-5:30 time slot now and then.
    
    I hope that by reading the Digital notes file I am indicating a bit of
    interest in my company.
    
    I hope .0 isn't perceived as changing that culture that led many of us
    to Digital rather than accepting IBM and its 42-minute lunch.
    
    Perhaps it is the world that is changing, and Digital has to change to keep up
    with it. Maybe .0 is asking us to "note" in moderation and to work a
    bit harder on what we're paid for. I really hope that's what it means!
                                                                  

    I've been in this conference since 1985, and at various times its host
    and moderator.  So people like Alfred and myself can speak with some
    competence as to how this conference and others got started.
    
    The key principle at risk here is the recognition of conferences which
    contain "opinion and matters of common interests" which in the key
    phrase in policy 6.54.
    
    The "simple answer" is that where you see "opinion and matters of common
    interest" expressed you have an employee interest conference.  It's the
    content rather than the label that makes it so.
    
    The policy, of course, applies to all conferences and has not changed. 
    The memo addressed to users of employee interest conferences reaffirms
    the policy, or makes it clear in areas where there's been ambiguity.

    I was the second moderator of DIGITAL (DTL was the first) and I was
    also the EASYNOTES maintainer at the time DIGITAL was announced by DTL
    in NOTESLIST.  I happened to have placed DIGITAL in the "Other Work-
    Related Subjects" category.  At that time, the term "Employee Interest"
    as applied to notesfiles was not invented yet, neither was there a
    class of notesfiles called "non-work related."  However, perception
    is what counts.  More on that later.
    
    In the earlier days of EASYNOTES.LIS, the categories were as follows:
                                                                              
Personal Computers and Workstations                                           
Base Systems                                                                  
Languages and Editors                                                         
Networks and Communications                                                   
Terminals and Display Systems                                                 
Applications and Tools                                                        
Technology                                                                    
International Subjects
Other Work-Related Subjects
Personal Interests                                                            
Miscellaneous                                                                 
Archived                                                                      
    
    One _might_ infer from the sequence that all the categories up to and
    including "Other Work-Related Subjects" were related to work, whatever
    that means, while the remaining two categories (not counting
    "Archived"), namely "Personal Interests" and "Miscellaneous" were not
    related to work.  Indeed, the same month when DIGITAL made its debut,
    there was a big brouhaha over the exclusion of those two categories
    from the version of EASYNOTES.LIS on ANCHOR::.  (If interested, read
    topic 555 in HUMAN::NOTES$ARCHIVE:NOTESLIST.NOTE.)
    
    Whether DIGITAL is "employee interest" or "work-related" is in the eyes
    of the beholder.  Sims and Glover don't know how conferences are
    categorized in EASYNOTES.LIS, and I bet they don't care.  Those
    categories never had any official standing; indeed, the original reason
    for grouping them in categories at all was to help people find notes
    files in the listing, nothing more.
    
    Any conference that has a high profile with Sims and Glover is liable
    to be viewed as "employee interest."  If there is a high level of
    interest among the employees in such notes files, they must be
    "employee interest," no?
    
    If the shoe fits, wear it.
    
    (Just my two cents, of course.)
    
    --Simon
    

    I'm not certain, but I suspect that Simon may be the
    inventor of non-work-related noting.   
    
    (Pleased to have *that* on your resume, Simon?)

    RE .11
    
    I think you're right. I believe that it was intended that the spirit of
    the memo should be applied. If, however, the contents were intended
    to be specific and ruthlessly followed then I believe that it is far
    too extreme in many ways and hope that it will be revised in the near
    future.
    
    .It's already been pointed out that many people work by the task and
    not by the clock. If upper management wish to apply the by-the-clock
    mentality then I think they'll be suprised by the drop in productivity.
    
    .Using digital electronic resources to sell goods... there's been a
    FOR_SALE section in Reading VTX for years, where employees may sell
    items privately - no commercial sales are permitted. What's the harm
    in this ? Just what do the policy-setters expect to gain by banning
    this kind of activity ? Maybe we'll have to use a pin-board or
    something instead ???
    
    .While I understand the spirit of the section dealing with
    innappropriate content of mails and notes in terms of sexual and
    abusive content, I'd be interested in hearing more about what the
    company feels is moral and immoral so that I can adjust my personal
    philosophies in order to "tow the company line".
    
    
    I think that the memo is way over the top and is likely to be
    interpreted to extremes due to its heavy emphasis on consequences of
    abuse of policies. Likely to do more harm than good both physically
    and to the morale of the employees. I for one feel somewhat depressed
    by the opressiveness of the memo.
    
    
    				Jamie.

> I'm not certain, but I suspect that Simon may be the
> inventor of non-work-related noting.

Actually, I think (and Simon may confirm) that Jared Spool is probably
the inventor of employee-interest noting, having created the first
CTNOTES conference in Jan 1983, which became the most incredible
conglomeration of genuine work-related discussion (PRO-350), personal
opinion, politics, venomous diatribe, and everything else we've come to
know and love and hate about notesfiles. CTNOTES (vol 1) was the
quintessential DIGITAL notesfile, and every single problem and benefit
we observe in notes today were first observed in that notesfile (before
"conferences").

>Actually, I think (and Simon may confirm) that Jared Spool is probably
>the inventor of employee-interest noting, having created the first
>CTNOTES conference in Jan 1983


You do mean "DITTYBAG", don't you?

    
    re. 16
    
    CTNOTES also had a "lost" solution - Clones.
    
      If you or someone said something incorrect, insulting, dumb, or 
    damn-dumb or otherwise foolishly exercised free-speech, the note was 
    attributed to that person's clone. The note was not hidden or deleted, 
    but 'Heh, just forget about it. It was a Clone who said it.'. 
    Don't have a Clone, use Schultz's. 
    
      In those 'good-ole-days', notes were a informal source of information, 
    stress-release, and entertainment and I suspect contributors and their 
    Clone(s) had thicker skins then and even a sense of humor (e.g. the 
    development of all those silly-ass character-icons :^) to identify sarcasm,
    etc.). The only "corruption" a moderator worried about was on-disk,
    "security" were people who turn your office lights off at 6pm, and
    "PC" meant personal computer ("PC-speak" would have been an incorrect
    reference by some Clone to DecTalk).
    
      CTNOTES wasn't perfect and the contributors weren't saints (well
    maybe Simon was) but I think noting was better then.
    
      maybe more cloning and less moderation,
    
      schultz' clone                                            
    
      p.s. I don't recall who invented Clones, though it is widely believed
          that Geoff Schultz was the first to have one. This should not
          be interpreted, however, that Geoff was the first to need one.
    
    

> You do mean "DITTYBAG", don't you?

Yes, of course, how silly of me :-).

Re "Clint's" assertion that noting was better then, I think you're
right, but part of what made that possible was that you tended to know
personally the people who said you were a flaming goober-eater, so you
got less insulted by it. 

Nowadays, people get highly insulted and threaten all sorts of stuff
before giving it a chance to cool down (I've done the same myself), and
then the escalation begins. Besides, back then, we could always go over
to "the pub" after work to blow off a little steam. Now, all you can do
is go home and steam about it to your family and pets, lose sleep, go
in the next morning and write a nasty mail to somebody's manager. I
think we need to learn how to take notesfile insults less seriously.

    Now would be a good time to mention AXEL::NOTES_HISTORY, the conference
    dedicated to the history of notes for more information in this thread.

    I think TRIVIA wins: it was the second notes file (SYSNOTES was the
    first).  Note 1.0 is dated 6-FEB-1981.
    
    		-John Bishop

>    I think TRIVIA wins: it was the second notes file (SYSNOTES was the
>    first).  Note 1.0 is dated 6-FEB-1981.
    
    SYSNOTES indisputably came first.  TRIVIA is probably not the second.
    STAR::JOKES reputedly was earlier than TRIVIA, but STAR::JOKES has been
    gone long since, and I don't know of anyone who can prove when it was
    created.  (Reference: NOTES_HISTORY note 8.4.)
    
    --Simon
    

    I think it's pretty certain that STAR::JOKES was second after
    SYSNOTES; I definitely remember JOKES during the height of the
    gypsy moth infestation around then, before I joined VMS - I think
    it was the summer of 1980. (I joined VMS in November 81, so if it
    was the summer of 81 it doesn't prove anything vis a vis TRIVIA,
    but I'm pretty sure it was the previous year. If anyone's still
    got a copy of the highly-forwarded "gypsy moth ethnic recipes"
    mailing that went round at that  point ("Swedish moth balls" and
    the like), it would prove which year, because I wrote that in
    response to a recipe Steve Beckhardt put in STAR::JOKES.)

Sorry I wasn't clear. there's no question that CTNOTES was not the
first high-traffic notesfile, but I think it was one of the earliest
(and possibly the first) to sport vicious gratuitous insults and other
sorts of notesfile behavior we have come to love. SYSNOTES, TRIVIA, and
JOKES tended to be more tame, no? Of course, nothing could compare to
the first generation of SOAPBOX, which was the first notesfile which I
made an explicit decision to avoid writing or reading.

The attached mail demonstrates that I had created the crash notesfile
on STAR by 3-jul-1980 or a few days earlier.  Not sure if that beat
jokes or not, but it was among the first.

- greg


From:	SAMUELSON  3-JUL-1980 12:20:00.00
To:	ROBERT
CC:	
Subj:	looked at NOTES CRASH.NOT.  Super!

    Someone back there had a good point. If you know who is insulting you, it
    makes a difference how upset you get. If some stranger called me a
    "flaming goober-eater", I would say "Huh? You don't even know me, pal."
    I might be a little miffed, but I wouldn't get too upset about it.
    Mostly, I would wonder about that person's state of mind. Clearly, some
    noters who get into it seem to know each other (although maybe just
    from past clashes). If someone gets nasty about my opinions, I
    attribute it to a bad day or a bad personality. In either case, I don't
    worry about it, I realize it colors their ability to judge me and my
    opinions. Other people have to live their own lives. If they
    choose to make themselves miserable by exuding paranoia and
    hatred, so be it. I make an effort to get along. Some people don't.

  My name is Bob Barber and I am no more or less qualified to 
 enter this discussion than anyone else. I, myself have been a 
 long time noter going back to the days of Notes 11, SEXCETERA 
 and even SOAPBOX V1. So given that background I believe I can 
 talk to what I have seen transpire in and to notes over these 
 last number of years. (About ten, give or take) I am just very
 disturbed by what I see happening in the files and have taken
 the time to write this..

 I've read the current memo from Ron, and remember the others that 
 have come out in the past. Each one gets less polite about spelling
 things out for those who choose not to figure it out for themselves.
 And in reading the entries to the former replys on this subject, it 
 becomes apparent that a number of folks haven't figured it out, or in 
 reality have chosen to ignore the warnings..

 What immediately strikes me is the majority of players that are at 
 odds with each other, are the same as the players who are, on a 
 regular basis, at odds with each other in all the other files. 
 I mean it is literally like opening any other the "controversial 
 files" out there..You can open any of them and the rhetoric 
 doesn't skip a beat.

 And the question is, what the heack is going on here. I can remember 
 the days back when noting was fun. You could go into SOAPBOX and 
 go head to head with people who's ideas and philosophy was 180 
 degrees out from yours. Back when you traded quips and could tell 
 someone you considered them a jerk for their attitude and people 
 were adult enough to shoulder it. More so to be challenged to come 
 back with something better to present proof of your side. Opinions
 and facts were separated and egos didn't get in the way.. We agreed
 to diagree as an end resultant..

 And moderation was literally non existent because you were 
 considered an adult and therefore "moderated" yourself. But what
 has happened ?? Now many files have become the element of certain 
 self serving people. People who's attitude is don't step on the 
 wrong peoples toes, your either "politically correct" or you have 
 the "wrong" point of view and you'll be shut out. Where opinion
 has become fact or the way thing are...

 But be aware that SOAPBOX for one is not the only victim of this. 
 Now what used to be adults having verbal jousts with each other,
 has degenerated into a bunch of crybabies with fragile over inflated
 egos that get bruised at the first sign that someone else disagrees 
 with them. Worse is those with such a selfrightious sense of purpose, 
 that they deliberately go into files to spread their personal philosophy 
 which is in total disagreement with the interests of the core group 
 of that file. For some time now, we have had those that are going 
 on hell bent crusades to defend and protect their "rights" ?? as to 
 say what they want in any environment (literally notes et all) and 
 those just as vehemently carrying the torch of their side charging 
 that they can't.

 Now we have spies deliberately looking for infractions to get a file 
 shut down. We have people deliberately entering elements and being 
 disruptive to exercise these so called "rights". To quote / unquote 
 "prove a point", that since all files must be open to all employees, 
 that they have the GOD (and CO policy) given "right"?? to say what 
 they want in any environment which caters to the opposite point of 
 view. They and others push the limits to see just how far things will 
 stretch before all hell breaks loose. The participants loose patience 
 with them and begin to escalate the insults. And by that point the 
 moderators now are forced to become dictators and overrule the "infidel" 
 before the pissing contest escalates any further. And of course the 
 "infidel" cries foul... 

 And I mean pissing contest here people. We have all seen incidents in
 which intellect and fact has given way to opinion and insults. Where
 the conversation turned to controversy and turned into a pissing contest 
 between two or more skunks for it stinks that severe. A pissing contest 
 in which none of the participants have noticed since their too busy being
 involved. So now what happens, but of course lets escalate this kid
 crap to personal. Ya that's the ticket !! And both and all sides run 
 crying and bo-whoing to personal, chanting, personal will stand up for
 our rights !! Right ???  WRONG !!!

 What no one wants to, and refuses to hear ( as evidenced by the 
 continuance of the  warning messages, from personal ) is that in 
 reality, personal wants nothing to do with this children's whining.
 But since it continues, they now are being forced into making some 
 kind of decision in an attempt to bring peace back to the system. 
 And whats the easiest and "fairest" way out of all this ?? 
 What do parents do when children fight over their "toys" ??  Right !!
 Warn them first and if they don't pay head, THEY TAKE IT AWAY SO NO 
 ONE CAN FIGHT OVER IT ANYMORE.

 So the message here should be fairly clear to you-all by now. And 
 for those wrapped so tight in your ego blankets here it is in plain
 words. SMARTEN UP and use the common sense that GOD put between those 
 ears of all of us. I mean come on people, THINK !!! You shouldn't 
 have to be a rocket scientist to understand that .....

 If your anti feminist you don't note in WOMANNOTES
 If your anti gun you don't note in FIREARMS
 IF your anti religion you don't note in any of the RELIGION files
 IF your anti liberal you don't note in SOAPBOX
 IF your anti Airplanes you don't note in FLYING
 IF your anti IBM you don't note in IBMPC...
 IF your anti whatever you stay out of the file that caters to 
 that element
 
 And the list goes on and on... No one out there in DEC land is so 
 foolish or naive as to believe that you are NOT about to be verbally 
 attacked for being anti in a core group notes files .. You know 
 better and its come time for you to face that reality and become 
 adult about it enough to stop playing the kid games. 

 In each case, you know in advance that you aren't going to get 
 a "fair" shake at presenting your point of view. In each case you 
 know the core group of the file is going to come back at you tooth 
 and nail. You know it will eventually turn ugly and the insults will
 only escalate. So WHY go and do it ?? To satisfy your own personal 
 ego ?? Friends ..understand very well that if you continue (and you 
 ALL know who you are without any finger pointing necessary) on your 
 egotistical self serving paths and as a result wind up getting personal 
 interest noting shut down in this company. I would suggest you pack your
 bags and move on since there will be a NUMBER of legitimate users of 
 these files that will be MORE that outraged at you..And a whole lot 
 of them have FAR less sense of humor than I do... And many have the
 power to drastically affect your career here..

 I realize there are a number of inequalities that exist within the 
 files. Irregardless of what the intro statements say there are core 
 groups within the file that have set the flavor of the file..There 
 are times that you can't discuss an issue that is important to you
 in some files with the same safety factor as others are afforded in 
 their own environment. And I'am sure that inequality exists in all
 in all files in one form or another. But no file can cater itself 
 to serve EVERYONE. They exist to serve the majority of people that 
 are involved in that subject. And the message here is that if the 
 file does not suit your legitimate purposes then either go to one 
 that does or start one of your own.. But overall the time has come 
 to grow up, become and ACT like adults and use a little home grown 
 common sense for a change..Do this BEFORE it becomes too late for
 all of us..

                                            Bob Barber  
    

    RE .-1
    
    Bob. I think you're right on with your comments. I cringe at the people
    who want to waste the time of personnel with petty fights. And you're
    dead right if people continue to act like spoilt children they'll have
    their toys taken away. Unfortunatelt that will affect the enjoyment of
    all of us. There is only one point where you're dead wrong!
    
> IF your anti liberal you don't note in SOAPBOX
    
    I guess you haven't looked in there over the past couple of years. The
    core group (those that seem to have replies in every note) are the
    biggest bunch of right wing bigots I've ever seen gathered in one
    place. Just try entering an anti-war opinion or an anti hand gun
    opinion etc and see the personal insults you get. To be honest I find
    it quite amusing.
    
    Dave

    I disagree with much of what Bob Barber says in .27, but an extended
    debate on his 140 line note isn't what I had in mind.

    One of his points, namely that if you think X then don't participate in
    conference Y is wrong, and I believe in a way that's harmful to the
    idea of employee-interest notes and Digital as a whole.

    In person or electronically, no one should have their ideas or their
    character subject to hostility, ridicule, or abuse.  A pattern of this
    is harassment which violates Digital policy.  No employee-interest
    conference is a "safe haven" for this.  Notes should enlighten or
    entertain.

    A natural consequence of expressing matters of opinion and common
    interests will be some unintended hostility.

    Employees should understand this.  Incidents in which employees can't
    work this out among themselves, or with the moderators, are going to be
    escalated even higher.

    The puzzle for me and the other addressees of this memo, for Ron Glover
    and John Sims, is the intentional insertion of notes which the author
    knows will be deleted for violating policy, or refusing resolution to
    be worked out among the employees and the moderators. Such incidents
    were not part of SOAPBOX or other conferences before a year or two ago,
    and indeed the need for such a memo reflects how people view Notes now.

    
    Re .-1
    
>    One of his points, namely that if you think X then don't participate in
>    conference Y is wrong, and I believe in a way that's harmful to the
>    idea of employee-interest notes and Digital as a whole.
    
    That's not exactly how I read Bob's comment. I thought he meant that if
    you walk in to a den of XXXers then they're pretty likely to have
    strong opinions on XXX. If you're an anti-XXX then a) be prepared to be
    shouted at etc or b) don't bother note/talk with the XXXers.
    What you shouldn't do is get all bent out of shape and go crying to
    personnel.
    
    Remember people with narrow minds will eventually just end up with
    people who have equally narrow minds that happen to match theirs. My
    opinion is let them be. If all they do with reasoned argument
    expressing an opinion that disagrees is to ridicule it or attack the
    person giving that opinion then my view is just to laugh at them; it's
    their loss not mine. Unfortunately too many people go in spoiling for a
    fight and then one side or the other tries to bring
    moderators/personnel in as allies. I guess Ron Glover et al are fed up
    resolving children's disputes.
    
    Live and let live is my motto,
    
    Dave

    "E-I Notes" is no more serious a medium than coffee-machine chats in he
    corridor - the only difference is the lasting documentation of such
    chat.
    
    I think that this is all taken far too seriously - perhaps as a result
    of the american obsession with litigation.
    
    /a

    re: .29
    
>    The puzzle for me and the other addressees of this memo, for Ron Glover
>    and John Sims, is the intentional insertion of notes which the author
>    knows will be deleted for violating policy, or refusing resolution to
>    be worked out among the employees and the moderators.
    
    It's not a puzzle to me.
    
    People who like a lot of rules (and are usually involved in getting
    them implemented) tend to disbelieve that rules and policies can cause
    problems in and of themselves.  They seem to forget that almost every
    well-intended prohibition causes side effects they never thought of
    which, of course, they try to fix by making more rules.
    
    This can go on forever.  Take case law as an example.
    
    With more and more 'guidelines' as to what one can and cannot do, at
    some point, most people in the populace aren't thinking of right and
    wrong any more.  They're thinking about the rules.
    
    This makes sense.  Even if you 'do the right thing' you can get in
    trouble.  If, however, you do something reprehensible BUT follow a
    poorly-designed rule to the letter, you're safe.  This can lead to very
    strange behaviors that are in neither the best interest of the
    individual nor society as a whole.  Look at the U.S. tax code if you're
    thinking of arguing with me.
    
    Believe it or not, there are people out there who resent this.  Some of
    these folks like to point out the flaws in the system by testing the
    rules publicly.  One way of doing this is by performing actions that
    are obviously 'not right' but still 'legal'.  
    
    Don't forget that a lot of people in this company work with computers.
    Designing them, building them, and working with them often requires a
    certain kind of person.  Because of the nature of the machines, many of
    us are VERY good at looking at rules systems, stretching them to the
    limits, and breaking them if we can.  
    
    It's what we're SUPPOSED to do, what we do best, and what what gives us
    value to the company. And believe me, it's very hard to stop doing it
    just because the rules come from some guy in a suit instead of a chunk
    of silicon.  Sometime it's even harder, especially if you don't agree
    with the rules.
    
    So when you say "knows will be deleted for violating policy", I think
    in a lot of cases you really mean "knows is not 'right'".  When you fault
    someone for escalating a problem, you forget that, although the intent
    was most likely different, it's something the rules allow. 
    
    And THAT is probably the whole point of entering the note.
    
>    Such incidents were not part of SOAPBOX or other conferences before a
>    year or two ago, and indeed the need for such a memo reflects how
>    people view Notes now.
    
    Think about when 'guidelines' about conferences started appearing from
    on high.  Think about what I wrote about the apparent need for more and
    more rules.
    
    -joe tomkowitz
                                

    >This prohibition covers efforts to  solicit employees for personal or
    >political gain, to sell or  market goods or services (except authorized
    >marketplace or  discount conferences) and efforts to solicit employees
    >to take  action, sign petitions or support particular causes or candidates.
    
    This "memo" was forwarded down through my management.  However, by the
    time it got to me, there had been some alterations.  In the section
    shown above, somebody in the chain had dropped an "o" from "goods".    
    Perhaps somebody in the loop has a problem with conferences that
    discuss religion.  ;-)
    

    Will this affect all the "United Way" solicitations I've seen from time
    to time in the US?

>    Will this affect all the "United Way" solicitations I've seen from time
>    to time in the US?
    
    We should only be so lucky. The United Way is concidered a special
    case. As sort of a company project it will remain an exception for
    the foreseable future.
    
    			Alfred

    I didn't see any mention of exceptions in the memo.

re: .36

>    I didn't see any mention of exceptions in the memo.

You're forgetting the catch...Catch 22 says that only the people
who make the rules need to know what the exceptions are...and it
certainly is NOT in their interest to write them down (so that you
can find out about them).
							paul

.37> You're forgetting the catch...Catch 22 says that only the people
.37> who make the rules need to know what the exceptions are...

In addition to the fact that "he who has the gold makes the rules" and
for the moment, with respect to Notes ... Digital has the gold and until
such time as I am CEO of Digital ... I will obey the rules, to the letter.

Personally, I have zero problems with what Sim's said.

Bubba

    	re: United Way
    
    	This shows that the people formulating the memo were/are out
    	of touch with the general noting population.  Anyone familiar
    	with E-I notes knows that "The United Way Question" is in the
    	backs of many noters' minds.  Every year "The Uniited Way
    	Question" is raised in the DIGITAL notesfile when the pledge
    	drives start up.  The same thing happens in SOAPBOX and other
    	conferences.
    
    	Since the memo doesn't seem to make sacred certain cows, I
    	intend to at least CONSIDER making an issue of it in the
    	conferences I moderate when pledge drives are announced therein.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

RE: 34, .36, .39

The policy regarding employee solicitation says that such solicitation is
prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from Corporate Personell.  The
annual United Way campaign is an example (in fact, the only one I know of)
of an employee solicitation for which permission has been granted.

--PSW

    	I don't recall seeing the "prior permission" clause before.
    
    	I could be mistaken, and would appreciate a pointer to its
    	whereabouts.

RE: .41

You're right.  I just looked up policy 6.19 on employee solicitations and it
just says no soliciting in any way for any purpose on company time.  I thought
I recalled an exception process being mentioned that was used to sanction the
United Way campaign.

I think the explanation for United Way runs like this:  since the United Way
campaign is a company-supported activity, it is exempt from the restrictions
of policy 6.19, which applies only to employee-initiated (as opposed to
company-initiated) soliciting.

--PSW

    Are we DEC the Co missing the boat on this one ?? I mean we have 
   been doing NOTES for so long now we should be old hands at it ..
   I know we sell it as a product for VAX systems but what would it
   take to convert it over to a PC applications market ??

   Note that the WS analysts seem to be unaware that we have this ..
    
    From Vogon News ..

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 2515               Friday 14-Feb-1992            Circulation :  8089 


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

 Lotus - Relies on 'Notes' to write success
	{The Wall Street Journal, 13-Feb-92, p. B4}
   Lotus sold more than $500 million of its 1-2-3 spreadsheet and related
 software last year. It sold less than $25 million of a little-known
 "groupware" program called Notes, software designed for use by teams of people 
 on a computer network. Never mind the numbers. Notes, says Jim P. Manzi,
 Lotus' embattled chief executive, is "the future of the company." After a slow
 start, sales took off last year and the program was hailed as the first
 industrial-strength example of groupware. General Motors Corp. bought 15,000
 copies. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Chase Manhattan Corp. and scores of
 other big companies are building networks around Notes. Price Waterhouse Inc.
 already runs most of its business on Notes, swapping research and managing
 projects on-line. Notes got another boost in July, when IBM aid it will use
 its huge sales force to push the product. By Dec. 31, Lotus had sole 117,000
 Notes licenses among 400 companies, compared with 35,000 licenses at 75
 companies the previous year. Analysts say a Borland Internation team is hard
 at work on a similar product, and that Microsoft also has a development effort

> underway. "No one else has anything like Notes," says Steven Frankel, an
> analyst with Adams Harkness & Hill, Boston. "They've got at least another year
> on the competition. This is technology Bill Gates would kill for," he says,

 referring to Microsoft's chief executive. Notes customers are enthusiastic.
 David Daniels, a technology manager for Met Life, says Notes is so useful in
 coordinating teams of people working on a network that "it could do for
 networks what 1-2-3 did for the stand-alone personal computer in the 1980s."
 With sales of Notes and cc:Mail doubling annual, analysts expect they could
 grow from less than 6% of Lotus' revenue last year to 10% this year and
 perhaps 20% in 1993. Lotus doesn't discourage such high expectations. Says
 chief technician Mr. Landry: "With Notes, Lotus can change the way the world
 works, again."

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
        Please send subscription and backissue requests to CASEE::VNS

    Permission to copy material from this VNS is granted (per DIGITAL PP&P)
    provided that the message header for the issue and credit lines for the
    VNS correspondent and original source are retained in the copy.

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2515      Friday 14-Feb-1992   <><><><><><><><>

>>  Note that the WS analysts seem to be unaware that we have this ..

Well, depending on how you look at it, we don't. While Lotus Notes is at its 
root related to the Notes we're familiar with (no surprise, since Len Kawell was
one of its developers; several of the core designers were ex-VMS devos), the
reviews I've read of Lotus Notes indicates that it has a lot more groupware
oriented features than does VAX Notes. In any event, it's far from just a clone.

Not meaning to be negative about VAX Notes - just indicating that similarity in
name doesn't necessarily indicate equivalence in function.

Lotus Notes is indeed a comprehensive groupware product.  The only real
connections between Lotus Notes and VAX NOTES are the word "notes" in the name
and that the originator of both products was Len Kawell.

--PSW

Isn't it too bad that Digital didn't trademark "Notes"?

And why can't I run notes without having a VAX attached?  If PC
users on ANY network could have this capability, maybe they'd be
quoting DEC executives instead of the folks at Lotus!

		(grumble, grumble)

				- - Steve

    NOTES was born in a fit of midnight hacking.
                                        
    If anyone really wanted a PC NOTES, they'd have written one.
    
    (This reply is only half in jest...)

    
    	to be sure, there are some PC notes. As to any formal, announced
    product, you'd have to talk to the Pathworks folk.

    
    
    PC NOTES = BULLENTIN BOARD

>Isn't it too bad that Digital didn't trademark "Notes"?
    
    What good would that have done?  Lotus Notes by any other name would
    still outsell VAX Notes hands down, if the product is a winner.  
    
    If VAX Notes didn't have a captive installed base (ourselves) I wonder
    how long the product would have been out of business already.
    
    --Simon