NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/org/decus/1086

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 7.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!gatech!wa4mei!nanovx!dragon!cts
From: [e-mail] (Charles T. Smith, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.org.decus
Subject: Re: EXECUTION of DECUS Standards
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 92 07:21:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited
Lines: 147

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Clyde T. Poole) writes:
>>>    A reasonable SWAG is that, at the end of their life, the newsletter
>>>    sub base was about equal to DECUServe subscriptions, also equal to
>>>    DCS accounts, (total, not active.)
>>
>>So I guess they get the axe next, eh? :-)
>
> There are currently NO plans that I know of to discontinue DECUServe.
> Their request for capital equipment has been delayed because of the
> current DECUS cash crunch.

I'd hope that as long as DECUServe is more or less self supporting, it
will be relatively safe from the sacrificial alter.

What would be of interest is some info on exactly what items are
being cut, and what's being kept, especally the "overhead" items
such as leadership meetings and travel, travel to GIA chapters, etc.

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

All of these transports can be gatewayed to each other.  Perhaps this
should become a project - to implement the tools to move things between
these different transports so that "I don't like the Notes interface"
can be a reason not to dialog with a user who is comfortable only with
this interface.

As a short homily, my organization has several Email systems - Mainframe,
Vaxmail, Unix, Wang, AS400 office, and cc:Mail.  In the beginning,
most users only used one mail system;  however, as information sharing
and business requirements forced more and more of these people to work
together and exchange information, a lot of people were forced to
connect to several different mail systems.  This created a lot of
hassles - people who were comfortable with PROFS didn't cotton to
Vaxmail or cc:Mail too well.  Attempts to force a standard didn't
work too well... most users only really accessed one of the several
machines above, and wanted all of their stuff to come to their
familiar desk top.  The solution, which we're implementing now, has
been to gateway all of these systems together, where the user can
choose whatever home mailbox he's comfortable with, and still have
full participation with all the folks he needs (or wants) to talk
to.

DECUS currently has at least four means of electronically doing business:
All-In-None^H^H^H^H1, Notes, News (eg, right here), and Vaxmail.  What
might go a long way is an effective way of moving things transparently
though all of these based on what a user felt comfortable with (though
based on volume, I suspect most users would be forced to use either a
newsreader type interface or Notes).

> 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.  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,
> 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.

Actually, I've looked through some of the documents in [CENTRAL] and
can find references to open meetings for the Board and MC, but no
overall cannon.

Does such exist?

And frankly, a model where one is expected to ask doesn't match
what I'd consider "open", at least the way the state and county
here does it.

However, I suppose I could throw together a job that would, say,
run once a week and send mail to the board, MC, Sig council, and
anyone else I could think of that would be likly to have an open
meeting and ask "What's up", say, every week or month ;->...

I think it would be much more productive to make announcing, and
reporting meetings to be part of the way DECUS works.

And I'd like to propose, and will follow up by any mechism necessary
that a bylaw or cannon be created that:

  o)  Defines open meeting rules for all society events.
  o)  Outlines specific topics which can be discussed in
      a closed session and limits the session to those topics
      alone.
  o)  Defines means and deadlines for announcing meetings,
      eg, via mailing list, news, and on DECUServe.
  o)  Requires that all funded meetings keep minutes, and
      that the minutes be published via mailing list, news,
       and on DECUserve.

> 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.

For most purposes, recording and transcription, preferably by a
disinterested 3rd party, would suffice, especally if an adgenda were
announced suitably in advance.

> 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).

My main concern is I see a lot of stuff from various places that read
to me like "Trust me.  I'm doing what's best for you;  I've looked
at all the info, and it's the right thing to do."  I'm well aware this
is beating a dead horse over and over, but I've heard that line before.

Maybe this isn't what you're saying, or at least intend.

But I'm not willing to blindly trust any more.  Trust, yes, indeed, but
trust with verification and observation.  Frankly, I'd like to know a
lot more about what's going on, what's on the table, and have some
means of tapping into this easily, frequently, and without going
though a lot of techno-hassle to do it.

Frankly, I don't have a lot of idea what it is you do, what options
you've supported... but I'd like to.  I have reacted emotionally,
and negatively, to the manner you've backed up some decisions;
perhaps this would have never been an issue if everything had been
readily available on the table up front.

> If you have a
> question about a particular decision I made, I will be happy to
> discuss it with you.

For a start, how about a detailed list of cuts and what's still on
the budget, with special attention to overhead items.


--
Charles T. Smith, Jr.
[e-mail]