Conference 7.286::digital

I don't suppose you've sent a message to POWDML::SYSTEM asking if there's a
problem which needs to be corrected....  Conspiracy theories are so much
more fun.

				Steve

    I'm not surprised. The attitude of the anonymous sponsors of that
    conference were reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland, when she
    said: "When I use a word, it means whatever I want it to mean".
    
    In other words, any attempt to discover, discuss and promulgate
    consistent ethical standards within the company, while still reserving
    to management the privilege to use situational ethics was doomed to fail by
    its own contradictions.
    
    
    Publius

Steve:

  It would be a very curious system failure indeed -- All the
  other POWDML:: notesfiles are still there.

                                   Atlant

>    I'm not surprised. The attitude of the anonymous sponsors of that
>    conference were reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland, when she
>    said: "When I use a word, it means whatever I want it to mean".

	This is an erroneous assertion.












	It was Humpty Dumpty who said that!

    Now wait a minute!  The plot thickens!  Atlant, you posted an entry in
    EASYNET_CONFERENCES today at 12:48 regarding this issue.  Quick
    searching reveals that EVEN THE LISTING IN EASYNET_CONFERENCES IS NOW
    MISSING!  Further searching reveals that someone even deleted it FROM
    THE OLD LISTINGS SAVED IN MY DIRECTORY!!!!!
    
    Next, Lionel, you're obviously in on this too!  What's your excuse for
    not answering Atlant's post in EASYNET_CONFERENCES in the 14 minutes
    between when he posted the basenote there and when he was forced BY
    YOUR INACTIVITY to post it here in Digital?  Why did you see fit to
    take 25 WHOLE MINUTES?  Was it to cover your tracks?  Give your
    confederates in crime some time to escape?
    
    It's obvious that we're being denied the truth and Lionel, who JUST SO
    HAPPENS TO BE A MOD IN BOTH OF THESE CONFERENCES is involved. 
    Coincidence?  Conspiracy?  Hmmmph!
    
    								Tex

    If this is true & it's sunk beneath the waves...
    
    Dang, and my last ext *.* foo.txt of that file is a couple weeks out of
    date.  
    
    I'll probably have more to say if it's really gone... 
    

    The ETHICS is not listed in easynotes.lis of 1-Oct-1995.  To be honest,
    I have no idea if it was ever listed there to begin with.

No, it was never announced there.

		Steve

    I just pulled this notes string and forwarded it to John Buckely, who
    is the responsible manager.
    
    When I spoke to his office about sending the string over, they knew
    that the conference had been deleted. I also tried both OPEN and
    DIR/CONF POWDML:: without success.
    
    Having worked with John on a couple of projects and heard him speak
    about ethics in his current role, I think we owe him a chance to
    respond.
    
    Sam

    From "Through the Looking-Glass"
    
    by noted 19th century child pornographer, eh, photographer,
       and children's author
    
    Lewis Carroll aka Charles Lutwidge Dodgson
    
    
    
    Humpty Dumpty
    
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty
began again. "They've a temper, some of them--particularly verbs, they're
the proudest--adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs--however,
I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

"Would you tell me, please," said Alice, "what that means ?"

"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very
much pleased. "I meant by "impenetrability' that we've had enough of that
subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you meant to do
next, as I suppose you don't intend to stop here all the rest of your
life."

"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful
tone.

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I
always pay it extra."

"Oh!" said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

"Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night," Humpty Dumpty
went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side: "for to get their
wages, you know."

(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't
tell you.)

"You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir," "said Alice. "Would you
kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called `Jabberwocky'?"

"Let's hear it," said Humpty Dumpty. "I can explain all the poems that ever
were invented--and a good many that haven't been invented just yet.'

This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:---

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"That's enough to begin with," Humpty Dumpty interrupted: "there are plenty
of hard words there, `Brillig' means four o'clock in the afternoon--the
time when you begin broiling things for dinner."

"That'll do very well," said Alice: "and `slithy'?"

"Well, `slithy' means `lithe and slimy.' `Lithe' is the same as `active.'
You see it's like a portmanteau--there are two meanings packed up into one
word."

"I see it now," Alice remarked thoughtfully: "and what are toves?

"Well, `toves' are something like badgers they're something like
lizards--and they're something like corkscrews."

"They must be very curious-looking creatures."

"They are that," said Humpty Dumpty: "also they make their nests under
sun-dials--also they live on cheese."

"And what's to `gyre' and to `gymble'?"

"To `gyre' is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To `gimble' is to
make holes like a gimlet."

"And `the wabe' is the grass plot round a sundial, I suppose?" said Alice,
surprised at her own ingenuity.

"Of course it is. It's called `wabe,' you know because it goes a long way
before it, and a long way behind it---"

"And a long way beyond it on each side," Alice added.

"Exactly so. Well, the `mimsy' is `flimsy and miserable' (there's another
portmanteau for you). And a `borogove' is a thin shabby-looking bird with
its feathers sticking out all round--something like a live mop."

"And then `mome raths'?" said Alice. "If I'm not giving you too much
trouble."

"Well, a `rath' is a sort of green pig: but "mome' I'm not certain about. I
think it's short for "from home'--meaning that they'd lost their way, you

"And what does `outgrabe' mean?"

"Well, `outgribing' is something between bellowing and whistling, with a
kind of sneeze in the middle: however, you'll hear it done, maybe--down in
the wood yonder--and when you've once heard it you'll be quite content.
Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?"

    I'd think that we'd all do well to remember that Humpty Dumpty didn't
    fall. He was pushed. THat's at least according to the conspiacy
    theories that I've heard.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

RE: 4167.2

It was Humpty Dumpty who said, "A word means what I intend it to 
mean..."

Alice was a very logical little girl and had challenged Humpty Dumpty.

Regards,

Alice

|                     <<< Note 4167.13 by TNPUBS::PHALEN >>>
|                               -< Humpty Dumpty >-
|
|RE: 4167.2
|
|It was Humpty Dumpty who said, "A word means what I intend it to 
|mean..."
|
|Alice was a very logical little girl and had challenged Humpty Dumpty.
|
|Regards,
|
|Alice
|
    
    I guess it shows how long I've been working under DEC, er, Digital's
    subjective rules and ethics.
    
    The logical has become the illogical, the right, wrong. True is false.
    
    Thanks for setting me straight.
    
    Publius
    

    They really should have called it the EMPLOYEE_ETHICS notes file
    instead of just ETHICS.  As is, us poor confused employees asked
    about Digital's ethics (or lack thereof: 3G's, labor law
    violations,...) and, as .0 said, the kitchen got kinda hot.
    

Why is everyone so surprised/upset/annoyed/whatever about the notesfile's
disappearance.  A goodly percentage of the notes entered by employees were
threats/promises (depending on your point of view) to boycott the notes
file (including my entry).

Obviously, the moderators of the notesfile responded to the employees who 
were unable to participate in good conscience in this company sponsored 
notesfile, by removing this burden of moral/ethical conflict from our lives.

Very considerate of them, I would say...

-- Ken Moreau

:^) for the humor and sarcasm impaired

    What Ken said.  I also am FAR more amused (schadenfreude alert) than I
    am surprised/upset/annoyed at POWDML::AN�STHETHICS's departure, and I
    figure that the maxim "virtue is its own reward" applies liberally in
    this case.  I also find it hard to envision any official explanation
    for its deletion that would not be similarly amusing.
    

    Let's take a direct approach.  I, personally, don't give a rat's %@#
    about POWDML::ETHICS, but I'd like to see some reality enter this
    string.  Someone please get the official word from the mod and enter it
    in here.
    
    I personally am not surprised to find a notesfile that was never even
    listed is now toast.  This is a daily occurence at DEC...er, Digital. 
    I *am* a little surprised at all the conspiracy buffs that have sprung
    from the woodwork and their speed in doing so.  The basenote was
    entered within fifteen minutes of the *first* inquiry in EASYNOTES.LIS,
    Lionel pointed the basenoter to 1.5 of that conference and suggested
    they follow the accepted procedures to determine what happened within
    twenty minutes of the posting.
    
    If no one's bothered to do that, I'd guess that the fun of creating a
    mystery outweighs anyone's real interest in the facts.  At this point,
    I'm as likely to believe that Steve, who's bearing Sharon Stone's
    love-child, deleted the conference himself because ETHICS is an anagram
    for THICES, the name they've selected for the baby, as I would be to
    believe anything else posted so far.
    
    								Tex

  I'm the poster of the basenote in EASYNET_CONFERENCES, as well as
  the poster of the basenote here, so it's no surprise that the two
  notes were posted nearly simultaneously and with the same content.
  I also *DID* take the time to write to the account-names that I
  *REMEMBERED* as being the moderators of the now-vanished conference.

  (I'd have written to POWDML::SYSTEM but there's no such username
  on that system; they must manage it from another account. Yet it's
  still foolish not to have the username "SYSTEM" at least exist as
  a mail-forwarding record.)

  No one has written back to me.

                                   Atlant

    And from what I hear, probably no one will.  Seems the moderator was
    hiding behind POWDML::ETHICS_MOD or some such nonsense?  Notes were
    deleted w/o notice or explanation?  ETHICS appears to have been an
    ersatz conference, never acknowledged in EASYNOTES minus (Atlant's
    single entry of yesterday and Steve's response), moderated by Anon, on
    a system with no SYSTEM account.
    
    Only mystery I see is how long this thing survived in the first place.

  I had more faith in this conference than most of the regulars did. 
  If the moderators wanted to shut it down, the honorable thing to do would have
been to post a notice to that effect in the conference, make it read-only, and
let it stand for a week or two before deleting it. The only reason I can think
of for deleting it on short notice is that there were a lot of notes that the
moderators didn't want people to read and they didn't want to take the time to
delete the offending notes while letting the others stand.
  This conference provided a rare opportunity to have a group "discussion"
with corporate headquarters. This is quite different from having a notes 
discussion in which the top brass participates on rare occasions. 
  I hope this doesn't mean the Ethics Office is going to "hide" from now on
except for answering specific questions by email and occasionally sending out
memos.

    
    Actually I don't miss that file one bit. Always been a little leary
    about *ethics* stuff when we is talking business (ie: MONEY) here.
    Can't let mundane things like honor, integrity, or respect get in
    the way of making a profit. After all profits are the reason we exist;
    heaven forbid we do something altrustic without due recompense.
    
    	
    And have a *NOTES* file to discuss potential improbables - surely
    you jest. This is the new Digital...
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

  I still haven't received any mail back from the folks who hosted
  the notesfile.

  Interesting behavior!

                                   Atlant

Wait until they discover the Internet, THEN will you see culture shock!

___Pete

Pete:

  You mean raw, unfiltered-by-management-lackies, customer feedback
  about DEC, err, Digital? I hope they've chosen a health plan with
  good cardiac coverage.

                                   Atlant

    Too right, Atlant...  and here *I* am, advocating (with the certainty
    of historical inevitability behind me) that DIGITAL will soon be
    forced, by the mere existence of web-oriented groupware tools such as
    our own Workgroup Web Forum(tm), to set up product-support and
    -marketing areas to (and FROM) the Internet...
    
    I can't help smiling at the prospect... :-)
    

Re: 4167.25 by Atlant...

> You mean raw, unfiltered-by-management-lackies, customer feedback
> about DEC, err, Digital? I hope they've chosen a health plan with
> good cardiac coverage.

Try "raw, unfiltered-by-management-lackies, UNCONTROLLABLE, THERE-WHETHER-
YOU-LIKE-IT-OR-NOT" expression.

___Pete

    Well, there IS a solution to the "THERE-WHETHER-YOU-LIKE-IT-OR-NOT
    expression" problem, whether that expression is found on the EasyNet or
    on the Internet -- to pull one's head back into one's shell and try to
    make believe it never happened.  Some folks have lower thresholds for
    the flight response, I guess... and/or they're just getting into
    practice for when things get REALLY interesting... :-)
    

There was an entry in POWDML::ETHICS from a non-POWDML:: contributor
that posited that the conference was being run in ignorance of accepted
NOTING etiquette, not in contravention to it.
Thus people whose idea of interactive discussion was based on the model
of READER'S CHOICE and VTX were perhaps bewildered that the audience 
and participants of the conference wanted it THEIR way, as opposed 
to the model assumed by the ETHICS promulgators.
Until I see evidence to the contrary, I am willing to believe 
that the conference was set up with good intent, apparently by people 
not familiar with the medium and its usage, and perhaps even in the spirit 
of "Bob Palmer is posting notes now, let's try the same tack."

"Do not automatically attribute to malice that which can be explained
by ignorance."

- tom]

PS:  "Thices" notwithstanding, the only anagram for ETHICS that my dictionary
computes is ITCHES.

tom:

> There was an entry in POWDML::ETHICS from a non-POWDML:: contributor
> that posited that the conference was being run in ignorance of accepted
> NOTING etiquette, not in contravention to it.
> 
> Thus people whose idea of interactive discussion was based on the model
> of READER'S CHOICE and VTX were perhaps bewildered that the audience 
> and participants of the conference wanted it THEIR way, as opposed 
> to the model assumed by the ETHICS promulgators.

  I wrote that basenote, and yes, that still sums up my
  feelings, save the attrocious way in which the conference
  disappeared.
                                   Atlant

    RE: .23 & .30,
    
    A lack of response to inquiries and the conference just disappearing
    seems rather unethical to me.
    
    Interesting...

    Good points.  As I recall, it was fairly clear in the early days of
    that file's existence that its proprietors had a deal of acculturation
    to do.  
    
    Many, specifically including myself and I'm fairly sure Atlant and
    others, initially suggested ways that they might fit in better, in
    "DECnotes-land."  
    
    (I was skimming my extract t'other night and was pleased (said he,
    breaking his own arm patting hisself on the back) to see the
    good-natured way that I and other native guides treated our hosts in
    that file.  Initially...)
    
    However, I'm really sorry to report a further recollection -- of folks
    who pointedly refused to listen and to change.  It was as if they
    persisted in "wearing their golf-shoes onto the tatamis of Japanese
    homes," MONTHS after the first gentle notification that "one goes
    barefoot there."  
    
    Note that I said "listen and change" rather than "listen and LEARN." 
    That is more value-neutral and allows for the hypothesis that they
    realized their gaucheries (and worse) but were constrained by occult
    forces and reasonings from changing their behaviors.  It is not
    necessary to adduce any inferences about intelligence.
    
    ("Occult" in the sense of hidden, not supernatural, of course.)
    
    Altogether, not one of our collective finest hours.
    

    This note is from John Buckley of the Ethics Office.  Sam Carr
    forwarded string 4167 to me and I have read the more recent entries. 
    Unfortunately, we have caused some confusion and aggravation over the
    POWDML::ETHICS conference.  That was certainly not the intent and I
    apologize to anyone that was offended.  In retrospect this was probably
    caused by myself and the Ethics Office not understanding the protocol
    of Notes.
    
    As an explanation, we were trying to use a Notesfile as a way to
    conduct an online case study of business situations that contained an
    ethical dilemma.  It was intended to be a group learning event
    conducted by open debate of the case.
    
    I now understand that noters prefer a more freeform of communication
    and do not wish to use this particular vehicle as a more structured
    learning tool.
    
    This should have been made clear prior to discontinuing the Ethics
    Note.
    
    If anyone does wish to discuss business ethics, either generally or a
    specific situation, you may call or write me at John Buckley @MSO or
    POWDML::JBuckley or 8-223-5889.
    
    Anonymous calls or memos can be sent to the Ethics Ofifce @MSO or
    POWDML::Ethicsoffice or 8-223-4636.
    
    

    Well, that sounds OK to me. Not everyone in DEC understands Noting.
    
    Alan

        Well, that "un-occults" the forces I was speaking of.  Thanks.
    

    "ATTENTION!  The Cubans have left the grassy mound!  Nothing to see
    here, folks, let's move on.  The Cubans have left the grassy mound!"

Re .33 Ethics Office Response to Note 4167

>   As an explanation, we were trying to use a Notesfile as a way to
>    conduct an online case study of business situations that contained an
>    ethical dilemma.  It was intended to be a group learning event
>    conducted by open debate of the case.
    
>    I now understand that noters prefer a more freeform of communication
>    and do not wish to use this particular vehicle as a more structured
>    learning tool.
    
John,

Just because you had a rowdy class doesn't mean that you didn't have an
interested audience. I would suggest that the experiment succeeded in showing
that there was an interest in the subject of Ethics, that there may well be room
for a notes file on this subject and that such a notes file may even help
achieve some of your goals. Should such a freeform discussion be set up and
moderated by the Ethics Office in the normal manner I would certainly continue
to participate.

However, "structured learning" seems to have a lot more in common with preaching
than with debate and I can't see any mechanisms available to you at the moment
within Digital. Nor can I see a lot of interest.

Mike.

>  <<< Note 4167.32 by DRDAN::KALIKOW "DIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName&Glory!" >>>
>                     -< re Tom's .29 and Atlant's .30 ... >-
>
>    Good points.  As I recall, it was fairly clear in the early days of
>    that file's existence that its proprietors had a deal of acculturation
>    to do.  
>    
>    Many, specifically including myself and I'm fairly sure Atlant and
>    others, initially suggested ways that they might fit in better, in
>    "DECnotes-land."  
>...    
>    However, I'm really sorry to report a further recollection -- of folks
>    who pointedly refused to listen and to change.  It was as if they
>    persisted in "wearing their golf-shoes onto the tatamis of Japanese
>    homes," MONTHS after the first gentle notification that "one goes
>    barefoot there."  

Dan, I'm not entirely sure whether the "folks" you refer to here are the 
hosts or the participants.  While NOTING culture is generally open
and participant-driven, the ETHICS folks had the goal of a more structured
discussion.  I'm not sure who was wearing the golf shoes here, and the 
particular tatamis involved DID belong to the ethics folks (though they
built in our neighborhood).

The demise is regretable, because I expect some accommodation could (still!)
be reached to allow a forum for both structured presentation AND incidental
discussions (the matter of "information ownership" that eric and I were
involved in, for example).  (I'd still insist that the hosts identify 
themselves, however.)

- tom]

    oh, give it up!

>    If anyone does wish to discuss business ethics, either generally or a
>    specific situation, you may call or write me at John Buckley @MSO or
>    POWDML::JBuckley or 8-223-5889.
>    
>    Anonymous calls or memos can be sent to the Ethics Ofifce @MSO or
>    POWDML::Ethicsoffice or 8-223-4636.
    
How does sending email to a non-person make it anonymous?  This reminds me
of the way young children think they're invisible if they cover their eyes.

Hey, they didn't say WHO was being anonymous in the transaction!!

  Send your mail from an AOL screename or a Compuserve P,Pn or
  whatever Prodigy calls their identifiers.

                                   [email protected]
                                  (and then some)

>>How does sending email to a non-person make it anonymous?  This reminds me
>>of the way young children think they're invisible if they cover their eyes.

You mean when I cover my eyes you can still see me? - DAMN!

I never read the ethics conference but it sounded like what it was intended to
do was to present possible "ethical situations" and their dictated solutions -
no questions asked.

bjm

    What amused me about the ethics conference was the language posted by
    the Ethics Office that was so obviously extracted from a textbook or
    similar style.  It was quite clear that the rules of these ethics were
    fabricated to suit the needs of business -- to further the purpose of
    making money while avoiding legal attention.  I have no respect for
    those sort of ethics, or the people who promulgate them, which must be
    taught, versus real ethics, which come from inside, whether that be the
    heart or the conscience.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    "Information Ownership" by Victor Pompa references the old ETHICS
    notesfile in the latest issue of FOREFRONT.

    Mark,
    
>                     -< a somewhat less interactive venue >-
    
    Somehow, that's hard to imagine ;-)
    
    	BD�

Where can I get a copy of FOREFRONT?

Mike.

    The people in the Ethics Office need a BIG lesson in honesty.
    
    Page 29 on Forefront Q2-3 FY96 contains the article "Information
    Ownership" by Victor Pompa which clearly refers to the discussion that
    took place in the Ethics conference until the Ethics Office deleted it. 
    But the article misrepresents the position that I and others took, to
    the extent that it would constitute libel if names had been used.
    
    Pompa writes the opposite position was that "there was nothing
    unethical about disclosing even proprietary information."  That is a
    bald lie.  The question posed by the Ethics Office and answered by me
    was:  If you _discover_ proprietary information of another company on
    the Internet, through no wrong-doing of your own, is it ethical to use
    that information?
    
    I argued yes to that question.  Neither I, nor any other person whose
    writing I saw, argued that it would in EVEN THE SLIGHTEST WAY be
    acceptable to disclose proprietary information of your own company.  I
    even STRESSED repeatedly that proprietary information should be guarded
    by BINDING contract.  Clearly under such rules, employees would be
    bound not to disclose proprietary information.
    
    Pompa goes on to present a response to another argument I actually did
    make, but says nothing about the rebuttals that were presented.  He
    displays an appalling lack of comprehension of the issues involved.
    
    This is a shameful display of a lack of ethics by Pompa and Forefront
    editor Dick Willet.
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>Where can I get a copy of FOREFRONT?

My question is, how can I STOP getting copies of Forefront?  I don't 
own either a parrot or a small puppy, so I have no use for it.

--PSW

I don't think you can, other than by moving out of the organization.

			Steve

    	It's my understanding that you won't have to worry about it much
    longer. I thought I heard that Forefront was following the path of a
    lot of MCS employees...

    ... one hopes that Forefront might be augmented/followed/supplanted by
    a Web version, possibly including interaction with its readers...?
    

 >   ... one hopes that Forefront might be augmented/followed/supplanted by
 >   a Web version, possibly including interaction with its readers...?

 Evidently, responsibility for FOREFRONT has recently shifted to Jane Blake, 
 manager/editor of the Digital Technical Journal here in LJO.  Just this 
 week Jane asked me if I'd become involved in putting future issues of 
 FOREFRONT on the Web, which I will.  

 - Jim (Working to keep our interoffice mail slots empty)

One hopes that Forefront will just plain go away, and the people 
wasting their time on it will either be put to productive use or let 
go.

--PSW

    Well, I actually *enjoyed* reading FOREFRONT. I read articles that
    informed me on other aspects of the company that I had no notion
    about. I'm sorry to see it go away.