killeen@EISNER.DECUS.ORG (Jeff Killeen Exec Committee) (05/01/91)
<<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.128 The DECUS reorganization 128 of 131
EISNER::KOZAM 60 lines 30-APR-1991 23:42
-< View from the bottom up >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I write as one of the masses - an active participant for 10 years,
but never a committee member or involved in DECUS management. I've
benefitted greatly from DECUS - the Software Library, various
symposia (once as a speaker), an active LUG, the SIG newsletters, and
DECUServe.
Until reading this thread, I have been completely ignorant of
the management structure of DECUS - I didn't even know that MC stood for
Management Council. The distance between active DECUS members and the
leadership is very large.
As a novice, I have several questions and a few impressions.
1. What problem(s) prompted the Arthur D. Little (ADL)
reorganization proposal? From a user's perspective, everything
seemed to be working pretty well. Is there some concensus as
what the problems have been and to what the goals are?
2. I had never realized the extent to which politics surround
DECUS. There seems to be a lot of hostility in these notes.
Much energy is consumed by politics and power struggles. I
used to believe that the leadership was made of primarily
altruistic people who wanted to help the society advance, to
the benefit of all members. Does the leadership actually have
an alternate agenda? Can any reorganization reverse this so
that the leadership is once again interested in the needs of
the rank and file?
3. There seems to be an impression that the DECUS membership
is uninformed and unqualified to vote. I've just finished
spending many hours reading the thousands of lines posted
here. I barely understand the most basic issues involved.
I want to become informed, but if that takes hundreds of
hours, then I need not apply.
4. I used to feel that DECUS was my organization, and as a
user of DEC products, I felt that DECUS had my interests at
heart. #3 above has made me feel alienated. #2 makes
me feel that the leadership views themselves as directors of
the corporation, with me a mere customer. Is the new bottom
line the expansion of DECUS for its own sake or is it the
degree to which the needs of the membership are served?
I think back a few years when the topic of making the software
library on-line was first brought up. The discussion revolved
not around whether this would be of benefit to DECUS members,
but rather, the degree to which it would reduce the
profitability of the Software Library. An organization that
is responsive to the needs of its members will be financially
sound. An organization that is unresponsive will find that it
has no members and the issue of financial status becomes
irrelevant.
5. Does ADL really understand DECUS? I suspect that few of
ADL's customers are similar to DECUS. DECUS is a volunteer
organization. Members are geographically disperse. The
degree of organization of the membership is loose. How has
ADL taken those special characteristics into account?
Regardless of the final vote, my view of DECUS is very
different.
================================================================================
Note 340.129 The DECUS reorganization 129 of 131
EISNER::LEDERMAN "Bart Z. Lederman" 164 lines 1-MAY-1991 07:35
-< Your view is very helpful. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 340.128 by EISNER::KOZAM >>>
| -< View from the bottom up >-
|
| I write as one of the masses - an active participant for 10 years,
| but never a committee member or involved in DECUS management. I've
As a sort-of middle level DECUS person (I'm a SIG Library
representative) I would like to give my comments.
| Until reading this thread, I have been completely ignorant of
| the management structure of DECUS - I didn't even know that MC stood for
| Management Council. The distance between active DECUS members and the
| leadership is very large.
I suspect that's true of a lot of members. And as long as DECUS
Leadership (however you define it) is doing it's job, that shouldn't
matter. It ought to be possible to be a participant in DECUS without
having to bet involved in leadership if you don't want to.
There are some groups within DECUS which are concerned about the
distance between DECUS members and leadership. Unfortunately, closing
that gap often depends on members telling leadership where the problems
are, but if they aren't familiar with leadership they might not know
whom to inform. If you can give me any suggestions on how to get
around this problem I'd be happy to pass them on.
| 1. What problem(s) prompted the Arthur D. Little (ADL)
| reorganization proposal? From a user's perspective, everything
| seemed to be working pretty well. Is there some consensus as
| what the problems have been and to what the goals are?
The reorganization seems to have been driven mostly from the board
level. There have been some disagreements between the Board and MC,
and a way to correct those problems is needed. Another problem is the
one you mentioned: the gap between 'members' and 'leadership': but that
seems to have been lost in the dust.
There is no consensus at all about what the problem is and what the
cure should be. My impression is that most of the operational unit
people (the services you mentioned, Symposia, Library, LUGS, etc.) are
happy with the current organization, and are doing their job. I'm sure
they'll be happy to hear a user say that the services are getting
through. To a lot of people, this indicates that the current structure
is basically sound. But a few people at the top (i.e., the Board of
Directors) apparently don't agree.
| 2. I had never realized the extent to which politics surround
| DECUS. There seems to be a lot of hostility in these notes.
| Much energy is consumed by politics and power struggles. I
| used to believe that the leadership was made of primarily
| altruistic people who wanted to help the society advance, to
| the benefit of all members. Does the leadership actually have
| an alternate agenda? Can any reorganization reverse this so
| that the leadership is once again interested in the needs of
| the rank and file?
I believe that most of leadership is in fact primarily concerned with
just making the society run. You have not seen any of the messages on
DCS from various members of leadership who are basically saying "enough
already, lets drop this and get back to work". There were also calls
for a cooling-off period before deciding on the changes, as many people
didn't see any reason to rush into this. But they didn't get anywhere.
As for a hidden agenda: I'm willing to believe that the original
motivation of the BoD members was to improve the society, but now I'm
not so sure anymore. One of the problems is that most of the BoD
members who supported the change, including the president, won't talk
to us anymore. You just can't get a straight answer from any of them.
The only one who'll talk to us is Tom Provost, and he didn't run for
re-election so he won't be on the BoD if the changes go through.
I don't think the proposed reorganization will change any of this.
Many people believe the new structure will put even more power into the
hands of fewer people, which would be worse from the hidden agenda
point of view. But there isn't even any consensus on that.
The only thing which could make a change is changing the members of the
BoD and MC (if there still is one).
| 3. There seems to be an impression that the DECUS membership
| is uninformed and unqualified to vote. I've just finished
| spending many hours reading the thousands of lines posted
| here. I barely understand the most basic issues involved.
| I want to become informed, but if that takes hundreds of
| hours, then I need not apply.
I sure hope there are a lot of DECUS members like you out there,
whatever the outcome of the vote. Unfortunately, a lot of people
believe that the small amount of information sent with the ballot is
not going to be enough to make an informed decision. Most DECUS
members don't read these notes on DECUServe (don't have accounts), and
many in leadership think that DECUS members who aren't familiar with the
leadership structure as you weren't aren't going to know enough about
what's going on, and are not going to read dozens of pages of
background material. I hope we're wrong about this, but considering
how few people even vote for the President of the United States,
getting people involved in a DECUS election seems a difficult task.
| 4. I used to feel that DECUS was my organization, and as a
| user of DEC products, I felt that DECUS had my interests at
| heart. #3 above has made me feel alienated. #2 makes
| me feel that the leadership views themselves as directors of
| the corporation, with me a mere customer. Is the new bottom
| line the expansion of DECUS for its own sake or is it the
| degree to which the needs of the membership are served?
I believe that most leadership people view the goal of DECUS is to
share information, and work actively to that end. I hope the current
difficulty is a temporary aberration.
| I think back a few years when the topic of making the software
| library on-line was first brought up. The discussion revolved
| not around whether this would be of benefit to DECUS members,
| but rather, the degree to which it would reduce the
| profitability of the Software Library. An organization that
| is responsive to the needs of its members will be financially
| sound. An organization that is unresponsive will find that it
| has no members and the issue of financial status becomes
| irrelevant.
The issue of benefit to the members is always present. But somebody
has to pay to keep things running. Computers and sites and operators
don't come for free. It's unfortunate that the issue of an on-line
library would be seen publicly as an issue about dollars, but I can
assure you that a group of dedicated volunteer leaders kept pushing on
this until something got done. The result is that we now have
DECUShare running as a demonstration on this system and you can
down-load software right now. But behind all of the services you use
(Symposia, LUGS, Library, and this system) leadership has to be
concerned with who pays to keep it running: a fact of life most leaders
are willing to tackle to achieve the end goal of service to the
membership.
I agree that an unresponsive leadership would lead to the demise of the
society.
| 5. Does ADL really understand DECUS? I suspect that few of
| ADL's customers are similar to DECUS. DECUS is a volunteer
| organization. Members are geographically disperse. The
| degree of organization of the membership is loose. How has
| ADL taken those special characteristics into account?
My impression, from seeing the ADL presentation, is that they did grasp
some aspects of DECUS, and they did point out some real problems with
the society. But by no stretch of the imagination did they
really understand the entire problem. But one of the big problems a
lot of leadership has with the reorganization is that ADL didn't
(wasn't allowed) to explain what they did or how they came to their
recommendations. So a lot of us believe that we don't really know what
ADL was thinking. One thing I do know: one of the two ADL people who
did the report mentioned that he had been president of a college
alumni organization. I got the impression that he was basing his
proposed structure on that kind of organization, which would not suit
DECUS at all. But as I said, a lot of us really aren't certain that
ADL got the 'big picture'.
| Regardless of the final vote, my view of DECUS is very
| different.
That may be unfortunate. I hope you will pass your views on to
leadership: of course, with this note you have already done so to a
considerable extent. I hope others will be willing to take the time to
let their views be known. That's the best way to have a positive
affect on DECUS.
================================================================================
Note 340.130 The DECUS reorganization 130 of 131
EISNER::KILGALLEN "Larry Kilgallen" 31 lines 1-MAY-1991 08:10
-< Answer from the outside in >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<< Note 340.128 by EISNER::KOZAM >>>
> -< View from the bottom up >-
>
> 4. I used to feel that DECUS was my organization, and as a
> user of DEC products, I felt that DECUS had my interests at
> heart. #3 above has made me feel alienated. #2 makes
> me feel that the leadership views themselves as directors of
> the corporation, with me a mere customer. Is the new bottom
> line the expansion of DECUS for its own sake or is it the
> degree to which the needs of the membership are served?
DECUS _is_ your organization. If you find some group within DECUS not
responding to your volunteering, it is surely due to disorganization
rather than malice. If some volunteer power gets lost in the shuffle,
it is just one of the inefficiencies of our volunteer economy. Another
aspect of people working together is that sometimes feelings get hurt.
Now there is a segment of the DECUS membership who seem to have lost an
interest in the computer aspects of DECUS. They spend all their time
_organizing_. These are the people who are so motivated about which way
the committees are arranged. Although they spend a lot of DECUS money
doing this rearranging, it is not at all clear that this money would be
used for other things if not for the DECUS bureaucracy. Who would decide
what it would get spent on? Who would argue that it shouldn't go back to
DEC? Think of the money being wasted on committee rearrangement as being
kind of like taxes -- It gives you somebody to whom you can complain when
DECUS messes up.
So Technical contributions are still welcome (DECUServe is a good example).
If Technical exchange is not your preference, DECUS also runs a debating
society on the side.KILLEEN@DECUSERVE.DECUS.ORG (Jeff Killeen Exec Committee) (05/02/91)
<<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.128 The DECUS reorganization 128 of 144
EISNER::KOZAM 60 lines 30-APR-1991 23:42
-< View from the bottom up >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I write as one of the masses - an active participant for 10 years,
but never a committee member or involved in DECUS management. I've
benefitted greatly from DECUS - the Software Library, various
symposia (once as a speaker), an active LUG, the SIG newsletters, and
DECUServe.
Until reading this thread, I have been completely ignorant of
the management structure of DECUS - I didn't even know that MC stood for
Management Council. The distance between active DECUS members and the
leadership is very large.
As a novice, I have several questions and a few impressions.
1. What problem(s) prompted the Arthur D. Little (ADL)
reorganization proposal? From a user's perspective, everything
seemed to be working pretty well. Is there some concensus as
what the problems have been and to what the goals are?
2. I had never realized the extent to which politics surround
DECUS. There seems to be a lot of hostility in these notes.
Much energy is consumed by politics and power struggles. I
used to believe that the leadership was made of primarily
altruistic people who wanted to help the society advance, to
the benefit of all members. Does the leadership actually have
an alternate agenda? Can any reorganization reverse this so
that the leadership is once again interested in the needs of
the rank and file?
3. There seems to be an impression that the DECUS membership
is uninformed and unqualified to vote. I've just finished
spending many hours reading the thousands of lines posted
here. I barely understand the most basic issues involved.
I want to become informed, but if that takes hundreds of
hours, then I need not apply.
4. I used to feel that DECUS was my organization, and as a
user of DEC products, I felt that DECUS had my interests at
heart. #3 above has made me feel alienated. #2 makes
me feel that the leadership views themselves as directors of
the corporation, with me a mere customer. Is the new bottom
line the expansion of DECUS for its own sake or is it the
degree to which the needs of the membership are served?
I think back a few years when the topic of making the software
library on-line was first brought up. The discussion revolved
not around whether this would be of benefit to DECUS members,
but rather, the degree to which it would reduce the
profitability of the Software Library. An organization that
is responsive to the needs of its members will be financially
sound. An organization that is unresponsive will find that it
has no members and the issue of financial status becomes
irrelevant.
5. Does ADL really understand DECUS? I suspect that few of
ADL's customers are similar to DECUS. DECUS is a volunteer
organization. Members are geographically disperse. The
degree of organization of the membership is loose. How has
ADL taken those special characteristics into account?
Regardless of the final vote, my view of DECUS is very
different.
================================================================================
Note 340.129 The DECUS reorganization 129 of 144
EISNER::LEDERMAN "Bart Z. Lederman" 164 lines 1-MAY-1991 07:35
-< Your view is very helpful. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 340.128 by EISNER::KOZAM >>>
| -< View from the bottom up >-
|
| I write as one of the masses - an active participant for 10 years,
| but never a committee member or involved in DECUS management. I've
As a sort-of middle level DECUS person (I'm a SIG Library
representative) I would like to give my comments.
| Until reading this thread, I have been completely ignorant of
| the management structure of DECUS - I didn't even know that MC stood for
| Management Council. The distance between active DECUS members and the
| leadership is very large.
I suspect that's true of a lot of members. And as long as DECUS
Leadership (however you define it) is doing it's job, that shouldn't
matter. It ought to be possible to be a participant in DECUS without
having to bet involved in leadership if you don't want to.
There are some groups within DECUS which are concerned about the
distance between DECUS members and leadership. Unfortunately, closing
that gap often depends on members telling leadership where the problems
are, but if they aren't familiar with leadership they might not know
whom to inform. If you can give me any suggestions on how to get
around this problem I'd be happy to pass them on.
| 1. What problem(s) prompted the Arthur D. Little (ADL)
| reorganization proposal? From a user's perspective, everything
| seemed to be working pretty well. Is there some consensus as
| what the problems have been and to what the goals are?
The reorganization seems to have been driven mostly from the board
level. There have been some disagreements between the Board and MC,
and a way to correct those problems is needed. Another problem is the
one you mentioned: the gap between 'members' and 'leadership': but that
seems to have been lost in the dust.
There is no consensus at all about what the problem is and what the
cure should be. My impression is that most of the operational unit
people (the services you mentioned, Symposia, Library, LUGS, etc.) are
happy with the current organization, and are doing their job. I'm sure
they'll be happy to hear a user say that the services are getting
through. To a lot of people, this indicates that the current structure
is basically sound. But a few people at the top (i.e., the Board of
Directors) apparently don't agree.
| 2. I had never realized the extent to which politics surround
| DECUS. There seems to be a lot of hostility in these notes.
| Much energy is consumed by politics and power struggles. I
| used to believe that the leadership was made of primarily
| altruistic people who wanted to help the society advance, to
| the benefit of all members. Does the leadership actually have
| an alternate agenda? Can any reorganization reverse this so
| that the leadership is once again interested in the needs of
| the rank and file?
I believe that most of leadership is in fact primarily concerned with
just making the society run. You have not seen any of the messages on
DCS from various members of leadership who are basically saying "enough
already, lets drop this and get back to work". There were also calls
for a cooling-off period before deciding on the changes, as many people
didn't see any reason to rush into this. But they didn't get anywhere.
As for a hidden agenda: I'm willing to believe that the original
motivation of the BoD members was to improve the society, but now I'm
not so sure anymore. One of the problems is that most of the BoD
members who supported the change, including the president, won't talk
to us anymore. You just can't get a straight answer from any of them.
The only one who'll talk to us is Tom Provost, and he didn't run for
re-election so he won't be on the BoD if the changes go through.
I don't think the proposed reorganization will change any of this.
Many people believe the new structure will put even more power into the
hands of fewer people, which would be worse from the hidden agenda
point of view. But there isn't even any consensus on that.
The only thing which could make a change is changing the members of the
BoD and MC (if there still is one).
| 3. There seems to be an impression that the DECUS membership
| is uninformed and unqualified to vote. I've just finished
| spending many hours reading the thousands of lines posted
| here. I barely understand the most basic issues involved.
| I want to become informed, but if that takes hundreds of
| hours, then I need not apply.
I sure hope there are a lot of DECUS members like you out there,
whatever the outcome of the vote. Unfortunately, a lot of people
believe that the small amount of information sent with the ballot is
not going to be enough to make an informed decision. Most DECUS
members don't read these notes on DECUServe (don't have accounts), and
many in leadership think that DECUS members who aren't familiar with the
leadership structure as you weren't aren't going to know enough about
what's going on, and are not going to read dozens of pages of
background material. I hope we're wrong about this, but considering
how few people even vote for the President of the United States,
getting people involved in a DECUS election seems a difficult task.
| 4. I used to feel that DECUS was my organization, and as a
| user of DEC products, I felt that DECUS had my interests at
| heart. #3 above has made me feel alienated. #2 makes
| me feel that the leadership views themselves as directors of
| the corporation, with me a mere customer. Is the new bottom
| line the expansion of DECUS for its own sake or is it the
| degree to which the needs of the membership are served?
I believe that most leadership people view the goal of DECUS is to
share information, and work actively to that end. I hope the current
difficulty is a temporary aberration.
| I think back a few years when the topic of making the software
| library on-line was first brought up. The discussion revolved
| not around whether this would be of benefit to DECUS members,
| but rather, the degree to which it would reduce the
| profitability of the Software Library. An organization that
| is responsive to the needs of its members will be financially
| sound. An organization that is unresponsive will find that it
| has no members and the issue of financial status becomes
| irrelevant.
The issue of benefit to the members is always present. But somebody
has to pay to keep things running. Computers and sites and operators
don't come for free. It's unfortunate that the issue of an on-line
library would be seen publicly as an issue about dollars, but I can
assure you that a group of dedicated volunteer leaders kept pushing on
this until something got done. The result is that we now have
DECUShare running as a demonstration on this system and you can
down-load software right now. But behind all of the services you use
(Symposia, LUGS, Library, and this system) leadership has to be
concerned with who pays to keep it running: a fact of life most leaders
are willing to tackle to achieve the end goal of service to the
membership.
I agree that an unresponsive leadership would lead to the demise of the
society.
| 5. Does ADL really understand DECUS? I suspect that few of
| ADL's customers are similar to DECUS. DECUS is a volunteer
| organization. Members are geographically disperse. The
| degree of organization of the membership is loose. How has
| ADL taken those special characteristics into account?
My impression, from seeing the ADL presentation, is that they did grasp
some aspects of DECUS, and they did point out some real problems with
the society. But by no stretch of the imagination did they
really understand the entire problem. But one of the big problems a
lot of leadership has with the reorganization is that ADL didn't
(wasn't allowed) to explain what they did or how they came to their
recommendations. So a lot of us believe that we don't really know what
ADL was thinking. One thing I do know: one of the two ADL people who
did the report mentioned that he had been president of a college
alumni organization. I got the impression that he was basing his
proposed structure on that kind of organization, which would not suit
DECUS at all. But as I said, a lot of us really aren't certain that
ADL got the 'big picture'.
| Regardless of the final vote, my view of DECUS is very
| different.
That may be unfortunate. I hope you will pass your views on to
leadership: of course, with this note you have already done so to a
considerable extent. I hope others will be willing to take the time to
let their views be known. That's the best way to have a positive
affect on DECUS.
================================================================================
Note 340.130 The DECUS reorganization 130 of 144
EISNER::KILGALLEN "Larry Kilgallen" 31 lines 1-MAY-1991 08:10
-< Answer from the outside in >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<< Note 340.128 by EISNER::KOZAM >>>
> -< View from the bottom up >-
>
> 4. I used to feel that DECUS was my organization, and as a
> user of DEC products, I felt that DECUS had my interests at
> heart. #3 above has made me feel alienated. #2 makes
> me feel that the leadership views themselves as directors of
> the corporation, with me a mere customer. Is the new bottom
> line the expansion of DECUS for its own sake or is it the
> degree to which the needs of the membership are served?
DECUS _is_ your organization. If you find some group within DECUS not
responding to your volunteering, it is surely due to disorganization
rather than malice. If some volunteer power gets lost in the shuffle,
it is just one of the inefficiencies of our volunteer economy. Another
aspect of people working together is that sometimes feelings get hurt.
Now there is a segment of the DECUS membership who seem to have lost an
interest in the computer aspects of DECUS. They spend all their time
_organizing_. These are the people who are so motivated about which way
the committees are arranged. Although they spend a lot of DECUS money
doing this rearranging, it is not at all clear that this money would be
used for other things if not for the DECUS bureaucracy. Who would decide
what it would get spent on? Who would argue that it shouldn't go back to
DEC? Think of the money being wasted on committee rearrangement as being
kind of like taxes -- It gives you somebody to whom you can complain when
DECUS messes up.
So Technical contributions are still welcome (DECUServe is a good example).
If Technical exchange is not your preference, DECUS also runs a debating
society on the side.KILLEEN@DECUSERVE.DECUS.ORG (Jeff Killeen Exec Committee) (05/02/91)
<<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.131 The DECUS reorganization 131 of 131
EISNER::SCHULMAN "Justin Schulman" 18 lines 1-MAY-1991 09:14
-< Why I will vote NO >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been following this discussion for some time with very mixed
feelings ranging from puzzlement to suspicion to outright disgust.
I have even taken the time to read (offline) virtually all of the long
commentary. All in all, I find the bylaw changes to be fairly
reasonable but there are a few areas in which I am not comfortable.
The real issue, as I see it is a turf battle/power struggle between
the BoD and the leadership of the various volunteer groups and both
have failed, IMHO, to find a reasonable middle ground. Part of this, I
hope, is time pressure vis a vis the the vote on the bylaws. I find
nothing in the proposed changes that would eliminate a situation that
places the future of DECUS at risk and which, therefore, requires
immediate action. As a result I will vote NO on the proposed changes in
the hope that over the next year or whatever, the new BoD and MC can
iron out their differences and come up with a set of changes that are
acceptable to both groups and are in the best interests of the society
and its membership.KILLEEN@DECUSERVE.DECUS.ORG (Jeff Killeen Exec Committee) (05/02/91)
<<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.132 The DECUS reorganization 132 of 132
EISNER::BRYANT "Geoff Bryant" 31 lines 1-MAY-1991 09:54
-< Thoughts from a member of the masses >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read .128 and .129 in this thread and am finally motivated to
respond. Those two notes were very interesting to me...
My vantage point is definitely from the bottom up. I log in here most
every weekday and go to about 1 symposium a year. I have made some
contributions to the library and to DECUServe.
On the reorg, I voted NO. This vote was not based so much on the merit
or real knowledge of the issues, but because of reading this thread.
At that, I haven't read every word in great detail either, but names
that have gained my respect on this system seemed swayed towards no.
I don't have the time to read every word, but I wish I did.
As for DECUS and politics... Politics have never interested me and
often seem silly to me. I know I never want to have much to do with
leadership in DECUS or anything that would give me an account on DCS.
I think I get enough of a hint by seeing what boils over to here. It's
interesting and I'm glad it pops over here, but all I want to do is
watch. It does give me the impression that DECUS leadership is very
concerned and very emotional about politics and organization and really
doesn't care much about the mission of DECUS and technical interchange.
Bart's note (.129) was very encouraging. It makes me think that maybe
there are alot of DECUS leaders who keep the good things rolling, doing
it quietly in the background. It makes me think I may have the wrong
impression of "the larger leadership" and I'm glad.
So, is there a big gap between leadership and the masses? I guess it
depends on which leaders. That shouldn't be a big surprise, but it is.
KILLEEN@DECUS.ORG (05/02/91)
<<< TOPAZ::$255$DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BOARD_PUBLIC_FY91.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Welcome to the BOARD_PUBLIC_FY91 Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 85.17 Something interesting dialog on the by-law change 17 of 18
TOPAZ::FRYDENLUND 24 lines 1-MAY-1991 13:03
-< Hope we survive these impressions. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder how obvious it is to the average member that:
In every organization bigger than three people, conflicts arise and
some mechanism is developed to resolve it. Politics is usually better
than bloody noses (or worse) so politics always appears.
The fact that some portion of a group is involved in issue resolution
does not necessarily mean that that is their prefered activity. For
many it only means that it is a necessary activity for group
interaction.
Although I have little patience for those who engage in politics to the
exclusion of all else, we all owe a debt to those who are willing to do
some polittiticing so the rest can "work in relative peace
Only when the process runs amok (as may be the case at the moment) is
it a real problem.
I hope the "outsiders" for whom we do all this don't lose sight of the
fact that the current agony is probably an aberration and should not,
in the long haul, cause them to sour on DECUS (so long as it continues
to deliver technically).
FRYD (;-)}KILLEEN@DECUSERVE.DECUS.ORG (Jeff Killeen Exec Committee) (05/02/91)
<<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.138 The DECUS reorganization 138 of 145
EISNER::STONE_L "Larry Stone" 22 lines 1-MAY-1991 11:35
-< You need to convince me change is needed >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a firm believer in the "if it's not broke, don't fix it"
philosophy. Accordingly, it is up to the PRO side to convince me that
we have a situation that needs changing (I'll admit though, that many
people will probably vote YES because that is what the Board
recommends). Frankly, I am totally unconvinced there is a problem.
Some PRO comments want us to think the CON people want to
disenfranchise the rest of us. 1) I don't see support for this belief
and 2) nobody ever said DECUS is supposed to be a governement-like
democracy. Yes we can vote for some members of leadership but whether I
can vote for all of them isn't that important. I vote with my
membership - if DECUS isn't doing the job for me, I'll leave and I see
no reason to leave at this time.
What I see going on here is a problem I think a lot of volunteer
organizations have - trying to organize it like a for profit
corporation. Having served on the Board of a condominium homeowner's
association, I have learned the people you most have to keep happy are
your volunteers. So let's not worry about disenranchising the
membership, worry about disenfranchising the volunteers. Without them,
there is no DECUS and then there are no members which need to be
served.
================================================================================
Note 340.139 The DECUS reorganization 139 of 145
EISNER::MAYTROTT "Laurie Maytrott, NLC/Southern RLC" 1 line 1-MAY-1991 14:29
-< I am voting NO. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a DECUS member (Regional hat off, NLC hat off), I am voting NO.
================================================================================
Note 340.140 The DECUS reorganization 140 of 145
EISNER::BADDORF "Deb Baddorf" 7 lines 1-MAY-1991 14:40
-< Agreed. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> worry about disenfranchising the volunteers. Without them,
> there is no DECUS and then there are no members which need to be
> served.
I agree. And since most of the volunteers which I can see here
(i.e. ones who speak and thus contribute to what I get from DECUServe)
are CON, I'll cast my vote with them. They are doing the work for me.
================================================================================
Note 340.141 The DECUS reorganization 141 of 145
EISNER::ZIMMERMAN "Comp-U-Card" 12 lines 1-MAY-1991 14:45
-< No, No, No Reorg. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that ADL has little understanding of a volunteer
organization. The proposal for reorganization resembles a business
restructuring more than one related to a group of volunteers. I have
been involved in a variety of groups ranging from local community
groups to DECUS to Governmental entities to businesses. In my
experience the structure which works the best for large volunteer
groups like DECUS is more akin to an executive-legislative-judicial
than a board of directors with ultimate power save that of electing
it's members.
Because of this fundemental difference in philosophy I will vote no (if
I ever get my ballot).KILLEEN@DECUSERVE.DECUS.ORG (Jeff Killeen Exec Committee) (05/02/91)
<<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.142 The DECUS reorganization 142 of 145
EISNER::MAYHEW "Bill, Business Practices UIG Chair" 84 lines 1-MAY-1991 15:05
-< ENfranchisement; what's missing; near-term prognosis >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Hmm, Notes/EVE won't let me cut-and-paste from a more-than-one note
conveniently, so I'll wing this; please forgive me if I misstate
someone's opinion, it is NOT my intent.)
Larry Stone's point about disenfranchisement of volunteers in .138 is
well-taken.
Mike T. made a comment about an observed correlation between people who
oppose the reorg, and people who support disenfranchisement of members.
I don't agree, or I don't observe it. As a reorg opponent, I support
*EN*franchisement of members. If the present proposal had three
additional attributes I would most likely support it. I'm sure that,
to varying degrees and with somewhat different attribute-choices, the
same is true of a tremendous majority of the DECUS leadership. The
work has NOT BEEN DONE -- has not even *attempted* to be done -- to
bring about this consensus.
(My three attributes, if anyone cares:
1. Improved "voter education" -- at a minimum, lifting some of the
current rules and regs which effectively (sometimes through
misinterpretation, but still effectively) disable voters' ability
to understand what Board members -- and bylaw proposals! --
represent, in full dialog.
2. A member-initiated recall mechanism for Board members. Most (if
not all) units have a method by which their volunteers (and, at
least in some cases, their broad membership) can recall officers
and steering-committee members -- the people those officers and
steering-committee members report to. Elected Board members
report to the Chapter membership and should be recallable through
some method which has a high entry-threshold (to minimize nuisance
efforts) but which is achievable (to give it teeth). Engineering
such a mechanism will take time. An effort was made to put a
watered-down member-recall mechanism in the proposal before you
today, but the Board rejected it. I'm glad they did because I
don't think it adequately met the above criteria. The engineering
of that failed mechanism was attempted in, what (help me other
DCSers), 3-4 weeks? DECUS needs more than that.
3. *Either* leadership consensus that the change makes sense, *OR*
documentable, squeaky-clean methodologies used to arrive at it
that are fully open to member scrutiny.
4. (Optional but highly desirable) Inclusion of external experts on
the Board in some capacity, to give us the industry-wide
perspective that can help keep us from tunnel-vision planning.
)
Someone (forgive me, I don't recall who) raised the issue of getting
DECUS' work done, vs. this political debate. Mike T. was right when he
said when you have 2 people, you have politics. *MOST* DECUS
volunteers want very badly to do their real work; we don't have time to
do this nonsense. (While I find it an interesting exercise in
management skills and interpersonal skills and organizational
development, I simultaneously am trying to help launch 2 UIGs, run
my own business, and give my family life (which is frankly my top
priority) the amount and quality of attention it needs and deserves.
This is not the time for "interesting exercises" but since I care
about whether or not I will be able to successfully launch those 2
UIGs into something I'll want to participate in in the future,
I feel I have to put effort into the reorg question.)
There is NO WAY that passage of this proposal will permit the universe
of DECUS volunteers to get back to "business as usual." If this
proposal passes, all the volunteers directly affected will be consumed
with shuffling their organizations around to match the new scheme.
Organizations which report to, or depend on, those organizations will
be flummoxed while all this large-scale Brownian motion goes on, since
approval paths will be unclear, etc. -- look how long it takes DEC to
adjust to a reorg in any of its divisions, and remember *those* people
(DECfolk) work full-time and have full-time communication paths -- we
don't.
When I imagine the effort that will be expended in implementing this in
the world of "DECUS time" (part-time volunteers who don't always
communicate so well), my eyes glaze over.
If this thing were really well thought-out and there were consensus
about it, the implementation plan would be precise, clear, complete,
and there would be minimal confusion. I don't see that happening with
this plan by 1 July -- sorry, gang -- many of the unit leaders don't
have a clue how they will be expected to work or with whom. There are
no proposals that have been published that even create and populate the
committees that will have to replace the Management Council. Therefore
what we will have is either (a) a big vacuum of operational leadership,
or (b) an operational leadership structure that is dictated and rammed
into place by a few Board members. Not a pretty picture.
================================================================================
Note 340.143 The DECUS reorganization 143 of 145
EISNER::MAYHEW "Bill, Business Practices UIG Chair" 16 lines 1-MAY-1991 15:16
-< Whatta mess... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As if there were not enough controversy on all this, two technical
flaws have been found in the ballot package as printed.
The Concepts Document ends mid-word.
The Bylaws are missing a verb in section 5.6.
It is therefore not even certain that an affirmative vote on this
package would be a valid affirmative vote. The Board did not make the
required 2/3 vote to put *this* package before the membership -- they
voted to put the version _without_ these flaws out to vote.
DECUS could conceivably have to cope with a legal challenge based on
these problems, if the re-org is affirmed. At minimum, it seems to
this non-lawyer that an *additional* bylaw change will be required to
insert the missing verb...KILLEEN@DECUSERVE.DECUS.ORG (Jeff Killeen Exec Committee) (05/02/91)
<<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.144 The DECUS reorganization 144 of 145
EISNER::ELKOWITZ "who 336.32" 21 lines 1-MAY-1991 16:36
-< Try to do better next time >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After much consideration and blurry eyed reading of what was posted here, I
decided to vote NO also. I have decided to vote no, not because of the issues,
but because of the way they were presented. In this, I cannot give much in the
way of kudos to either side. What I have seen written seems largely out of
anger, mistrust, and paranoia. This is mostly from the CON side. The PRO
side on the other hand has done little to convince me that something needs to
be changed. Some of the notes here are so angry and confusing that I cannot
tell if the note is a PRO a CON or something else. (and I thought that I
was the angriest person alive)
Therefore my NO vote really does not mean that I am against the change, but
that neither side has done a good job of convincing me of anything except
that a lot of people seem royally p.o. about all of this.
Perhaps next time, a little more civilized debate and discussion would be
in order. There is not much doubt in my mind that most of us are "techies"
here at least at heart and as such we tend to be distrustful of politics
and of people who thrive in those environments.
Nevertheless, I think we, the rank and file, deserve better from all
concerned.
================================================================================
Note 340.145 The DECUS reorganization 145 of 145
EISNER::REID_C "Curtis E. Reid" 24 lines 1-MAY-1991 22:18
-< Re: .144 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>decided to vote NO also. I have decided to vote no, not because of the issues,
>but because of the way they were presented. In this, I cannot give much in the
>way of kudos to either side. What I have seen written seems largely out of
>anger, mistrust, and paranoia. This is mostly from the CON side. The PRO
>side on the other hand has done little to convince me that something needs to
That was my assessment tonight after reading about 20 replies. At this
time, I'm very unclear as to what the proposed changes really means.
All I can see right off is a political battle and that we, as a typical
DECUS members, are caught in the middle. I'm voting no for this
reason.
>Perhaps next time, a little more civilized debate and discussion would be
>in order. There is not much doubt in my mind that most of us are "techies"
>here at least at heart and as such we tend to be distrustful of politics
Again, I agree with his assessment. If the leadership were more
civilized and took a bit more time in making the proposal known to the
society, then perhaps we would be more tolerant and willing to listen
to the proposal and vote accordingly. I hope that the leadership will
do a better job next time.
Curtis
killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen) (05/02/91)
FWIW... FYI - Most of the postings from DECUServe are from members and not volunteers. Also FYI... EISNER.DECUS.ORG or DECUSERVE.DECUS.ORG is the membership conferencing system DCS.DECUS.ORG is the volunteer/leadership system
killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen) (05/02/91)
Sorry about the dup postings (3 of them) - modem problem
KILLEEN@DECUSERVE.DECUS.ORG (Jeff Killeen Exec Committee) (05/03/91)
<<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.146 The DECUS reorganization 146 of 146
EISNER::TANNENBAUM "Saul Tannenbaum" 16 lines 2-MAY-1991 12:30
-< Re. .-1, .-2 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me too.
I like politics. I generally think that vigorous debate is a sign of
health in an organization. Not this time.
This whole process has been grim and ugly. It seems clear that a lot of
what is being played out doesn't have much to do with the nuts and
bolts of the reorganization.
Unlike the previous two noters, I don't as much blame the CON side.
They didn't devise this process, the PRO side did. And I have read
more thoughtful CON commentary than I have PRO commentary. But to say
that is to measure the CON side against an uncommunicative,
propaganda-oriented Board seemingly more interested in a rush to power
than in reasoned debate.
KILLEEN@EISNER.DECUS.ORG (Jeff Killeen Exec Committee) (05/12/91)
<<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.149 The DECUS reorganization 149 of 149
EISNER::ZACCARI "All-in-1 and then some" 11 lines 12-MAY-1991 01:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After I got back from Atlanta and logged in, I got a chance to reflect
on this some more when I saw the multitude of messages in SOAPBOX. I
have to admit that I was amazed as the number of "NO" buttons that were
out there.
Someone earlier said that the people that contribute say no so I'm
going to go with them.
I voted long before I went out there but this statement really hit
home. Lets see if it can be done better next time and hope for better
presentation as well.