NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/org/decus/1061

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 10.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!mccall!mccall!tp
Newsgroups: comp.org.decus
Subject: Re: EXECUTION of DECUS Standards
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Terry Poot)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:21:05 CST
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Terry Poot)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA
Nntp-Posting-Host: mis1
Nntp-Posting-User: tp
Lines: 173


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Clyde T.
Poole) writes:

>DECUS is made up of LOTS of different "kinds" of people.  Some of
>those people like VAX Notes, some like All-In-One, some like e-mail
>and some like USENET news.  The unfortunate part is that as far as I
>know only a very few of the operating and administrative units of the
>Society (U.S. Chapter) can agree to consistantly use any one of the
>mediums as a way of communicating.

Which is precisely why I think the best solution would be to provide all of the
above interfaces using gateways. Furthermore, in supplying news, I would
envision supplying it directly to leaders home machines, if they have one on the
net. (Supplying news on the DCS machine doesn't cover the fact that some people
object to having to dial out to access it, regardless of the interface.) I've
actively avoided being granted DCS access for just this reason. Of course,
delivering the traffic becomes problematical if it is really desired for the
conferences to be private, but I still don't understand why that is desireable.

>The closest we come is the DCS
>mailing lists for "leadership."  DCS is closed to the general
>membership but e-mail too and from DCS is NOT closed.

But the mailing lists themselves are, right?

>You can
>communicate directly with anyone in "leadership" with e-mail directed
>to <person>@decus.org.

Just because I can contact you (if I know who to contact) doesn't mean that I
know what issues are currently being discussed, or what the state of the
discussion is, so that I could lend constructive comments/criticisms/support to
any issue.

>I personally will be very upset for example if
>I am forced to use VAX Notes to conduct DECUS business or if it
>becomes a "job requirement" that I read and comment on some set of VAX
>Notes NO MATTER what machine they reside on.  I have tired, but I just
>can't handle the VAX Notes interface and be happy about it.

The point is not to require a single interface at all, but to enable multiple
interfaces and let people use what they want. Join a notes conference, subscribe
to a newsgroup, or be added to a mailing list. That'd cover everything but
voice-mail and a fax gateway. :-)

>All DECUS meetings are open to the public except (1) those where
>"personel" issues are discused (2) those where "proprietary"
>information (read competitive information) about the Trade Show are
>discussed.

Those restrictions are perfectly understandable. I'm glad all meetings are
theoretically open. However, in any society as geographically diverse as DECUS,
it is impractical to expect someone to show up at a woods meeting at his own
expense, so in practical terms, the meetings are exclusive. Quite frankly, there
isn't anything DECUS can do about that for face to face meetings.

That's why electronic communications should be used to a greater degree. Minutes
of formal meetings and summaries of informal meetings could be posted
electronically so that members would have a chance to know what is going on
behind the scenes in a timely manner. Issues to be discussed at the meetings
could be posted in advance so that people can give input to those who will
actually attend.

It is not the same as being there, but it is as close as practically feasible,
and would serve to "open up" the meetings in a real sense.

>The MC and the Board of Directors hold many of their
>meetings at Symposium so as to minimize cost to the Society and to
>allow those present to attend if they are so inclined.  YES, we don't
>do a real good job of telling anyone when the meetings are scheduled,

Again, the intent is good, but the execution leaves a little to be desired.
Perhaps the meetings could be scheduled in the evenings on one of the "short"
nights when sessions are over at 5, and be noted conspicuously on the SAGs. As
much as possible, anyway, within the constraints of the amount of time needed
for the meetings. Perhaps all meetings could be highlighted in a different color
in the SAGS, from the BOD all the way down to working groups (I have trouble
finding those some time).

>but I know of no case where a question directed to someone on the
>Board or MC would not result in the information being given to anyone.

OK, please post the votes of the people on the MC on the issue of funding of
standards, and please post the votes of the BOD members on the issue of
expelling Kevin Mitnick (sp?) from the symposium where they occurred. (I did
make that request at the time.) Or email them to me and I'll post them. Since
the meetings are officially open, the votes should be considered public record.
(No, I am not being flip, I'd really like to know on both issues.)

>The MC has made it a policy to INVITE some of the most vocal
>"opposition" as observers at its meetings just to make sure that their
>opinion was heard.  The current money crunch in the Society (U.S.
>Chapter) may make this difficult for awhile, but I am sure we will do
>it again in the future if money permits.

A very good policy, which I support and encourage. Thank you. I'm certainly not
trying to say that leadership has no good ideas, does everything wrong and is
out to get us. I applaud the good ideas, and truly believe that most of you have
the best motivations.

>It is true that much of the Society's business is conducted on
>confrence calls.  This makes it difficult to have "public" meetings.
>The alternative (face to face meetings) would increase the cost of
>administration considerably.

As I said, post the agenda in advance, and post the minutes afterward. In fact,
due to geographical limitations, conference calls are no more restrictive than
face-to-face meetings, and I agree they are much more cost effective.

>I guess the bottom line for me is that "I am a volunteer."  I don't
>have to do this job.  I do it because I love DECUS (U.S. Chapter).  If
>you don't trust me or if you think I am doing a bad job representing
>the "membership" then tell me so and tell the people that elected me
>(yes there was competition for vice-chair of the MC).  If you have a
>question about a particular decision I made, I will be happy to
>discuss it with you.

I keep saying, and will continue to do so to be sure everyone knows it, I'm not
trying to attack any person or persons. I trust that you and most other
BOD/MC/other leadership members have, for the most part, the best of intentions.
Some people have attacked the integrity and motivations of the leadership. I
won't do that. I appreciate your efforts as volunteers, perhaps more than some
people, because in my own small way I am also a volunteer.

But I think there is a lack of openness (in practical terms) that makes it
difficult for leadership to hear and understand the concerns of membership. This
results in membership feeling disconnected from the society, and thus feel they
have little stake in the society. Improving this situation would, IMHO, result
in a more involved and active membership, and in leadership making wiser, more
informed decisions, surely important goals in this period of our industry's
history, where the only thing we can count on is change.

IMHO, the best way to do that is to make use of electronic communication media
to the fullest extent possible, to involve the greatest numbers of interested
people. The technology is there. It is somewhat ironic that this particular
society should run its operations for the most part ignoring those technologies
that the society is largely focused on discussing and helping people learn and
be successful with.

Jeff made a great point that you really want to listen. That's good. But unless
we know what issues you are considering, and how you feel about them, we don't
know what to tell you. You can bet that if I'd known that MC was considering
doing away with standards activities, I'd have certainly told someone, probably
you, since I happen to know you are on MC, that I think this is a bad idea. I
didn't say so before because it never occurred to me you would take this
action.

The truth is, Clyde, that I don't know enough about what you do as a leader to
have much opinion on your performance. I trust you, and the other leadership
people who I've come to know to an extent over the net, in the sense that I
honestly think you are trying to do the best job you can for the membership,
including me. I don't, however, have any data to judge how well I think you've
accomplished that.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss things on the net. Also that of Marg
Knox, Jeff Killeen, Don Roberts, Joel Snyder, and JM Ivler, to mention a few of
the leadership people with whom I've had various discussions, often more than
once, and almost exclusively electronically. (I think Joel and JM are the only 2
of those that I've met in person.) (Apologies to others, this is meant to be an
illustrative, not exhaustive, list.)

I'd like to see more leaders involved, and for that discussion to be proactive
rather than reactive. I'd like to have the opportunity to discuss things calmly
before a decsion (like dropping standards involvement) is made, rather than to
try and discuss it after someone posts his outrage at the accomplished fact of
an already made decision. Maybe all the discussion in the world wouldn't have
changed your votes, but maybe it would have. Maybe mine is a minority opinion
among the membership. We simply don't know, do we?
--
Terry Poot <[e-mail]>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
[phone], in KS [phone]           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA