hassinger@topaz.decus.org (Bob Hassinger) (04/26/91)
I think those who are receiving ballots in the current DECUS by-law change
election should be aware of the following discussion on DECUServe which has
surfaced. LDEC, the DECUS "election commission", has included an endorsement
of the PRO view in their cover letter. I appears this is inappropriate and
tends to improperly influence the voters. The following are the first two of
what is likely to be many more notes in one of the threads. There are similar
discussions going on in a number of other threads on DECUServe and DCS (the
DECUS leadership system).
<<< TOPAZ::$255$DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ETHICS.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Welcome to the ETHICS conference >-
================================================================================
Note 15.0 Ballot-administration ethics 1 replies
TOPAZ::MAYHEW "Bill, Business Practices UIG chair" 24 lines 24-APR-1991 15:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a new ethics problem.
As a DECUS member, I believe my rights should include elections that
are conducted fairly and without bias by a neutral
ballot-administration entity.
That entity is currently LDEC. However, LDEC has TAKEN A POSITION in
the cover letter of the current bylaw-change ballot.
To me this flies in the face of basic ethical behavior. If the entity
charged with administering a ballot has a position, pro or con, on the
outcome of the ballot, then the entity should step aside and a new,
neutral agency should take its place.
I do not see how we can have a ballot process which is demonstrably
fair and open -- as opposed to "maybe, sorta, kinda, mostly fair" -- in
such a situation.
I'm not sure where this falls in the universe of canons, bylaws, and
bills of rights, but it should be there somewhere.
(Frankly I find this ethics problem, which affects all of us, more
significant than the potential ethics problem of admitting Kevin
Mitnick to a symposium, but that may be my personal problem.)
<<< TOPAZ::$255$DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ETHICS.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Welcome to the ETHICS conference >-
================================================================================
Note 15.1 Ballot-administration ethics 1 of 1
TOPAZ::HASSINGER 15 lines 25-APR-1991 10:29
-< Very serious mistake. How can it be undone? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I read that statement from LDEC in the cover letter I had not been
clear if LDEC actually was running this election or if it was the
Board. It is incredible that LDEC, with its tradition of maintaining
a neutral position and its charge under the by-laws could do this.
The LDEC institution, and its members who allowed this have been
discredited. The damage has been done. I don't know what they could
do now to set it right. Obviously an _immediate_ explanation and
apology is the first necessity. Unless they have a credible rational
for why it was OK, it would seem resignations are the only option.
That will not undo the damage to the current ballot process however
which is now in serious doubt.
I wonder if this gross violation of election ethics will receive
attention in the DEC press?jeh@dcs.simpact.com (04/27/91)
In article <00947A86B48FB3E0.00002CBC@eisner.decus.org>, hassinger@topaz.decus.org (Bob Hassinger) writes: > I think those who are receiving ballots in the current DECUS by-law change > election should be aware of the following discussion on DECUServe which has > surfaced. LDEC, the DECUS "election commission", has included an endorsement > of the PRO view in their cover letter. I appears this is inappropriate and > tends to improperly influence the voters. Posting of opinions on this issue to comp.os.vms (a mistake not made by Bob, but others have done so) is inappropriate too. --- Jamie Hanrahan (x1116), Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Chair, VMS Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@dcs.simpact.com, or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh
davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu (04/28/91)
> Posting of opinions on this issue to comp.os.vms (a mistake not made by Bob, > but others have done so) is inappropriate too. Why? Are these newsgroups responsible in some way for running elections? I fail to see why posting opinions in various related newsgroups is 'inappropriate'. Please elucidate your reasoning for the 'statement of fact' above. If things had NOT been cross-posted, I, for one, would be completely unaware of the situation which has arisen -- not all of us subscribe to comp.org.decus. -- David Paschall-Zimbel davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
cfraizer@indiana.edu (colin fraizer) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr28.114603.1@simvax.labmed.umn.edu> davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu writes: [stuff deleted] >above. If things had NOT been cross-posted, I, for one, would be completely >unaware of the situation which has arisen -- not all of us subscribe to >comp.org.decus. [more stuff deleted] You're absolutely right: not all of us subscribe to comp.org.decus. Those of us who _care_ about situations that arise in the organization, however, should subscribe to that group. If the readers of this group cared about the inner workings of Decus, we'd subscribe too. Before you get out your flamethrowers, yes, I am aware that not everyone is reading this as a newgroup, but that it is gatewayed to a mailing list. If there is interest in a Decus mailing list, create one. I prefer that comp.os.vms (and info-vax for that matter) not be cluttered with Decus politics. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Colin Fraizer Network Applications University Computing Services cfraizer@indiana.edu Indiana University, USA (812) 855-7385 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
jms@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Joel M Snyder) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr28.114603.1@simvax.labmed.umn.edu>, davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu writes... >> Posting of opinions on this issue to comp.os.vms (a mistake not made by Bob, >> but others have done so) is inappropriate too. > >If things had NOT been cross-posted, I, for one, would be completely >unaware of the situation which has arisen -- not all of us subscribe to >comp.org.decus. Your reasoning is fallacious. The reason that we have multiple news groups is so that one only has to listen to information one wants to. There are many, many things you don't know because they haven't been posted to comp.os.vms, and this is no reason to post them. If you're interested in DECUS elections, then you should subscribe to comp.org.decus. If you're interested in motorsports, then subscribe to rec.bikers (or whatever it is). The fact that a broad majority of the readers of one group overlaps the broad majority of another constituency seems to bring out this annoying, and perverse, tendency. Posters who wish to avoid being known as "bandwidth wasters" should consider the ANNOUNCED readership of a newsfroup, (i.e., people who care about vax/vms) rather than the COINCIDENTAL readership (i.e., people who care about vax/vms are likely to be members of DECUS, and thus are likely to care about DECUS matters, even if there is a whole group dedicated to DECUS matters). In fact, this posting would have been better directed to an imaginary group, comp.os.vms.d, which would discuss postings in comp.os.vms (rather than discussing matters of substance, such as how I reset this darn new mail count). jms Joel M Snyder, The Mosaic Group, 627 E Speedway, 85705 Phone: 602.626.8680 (University of Arizona, Dep't of MIS, Eller Graduate School of Management) BITNET: jms@arizmis Internet: jms@mis.arizona.edu SPAN: 47541::uamis::jms "Son, all fat women are horny." - Mark Parity (parity@comm.com)
m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (M. Joseph Barone) (04/30/91)
In article <29APR91231050@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> jms@misvax.mis.arizona.edu writes: > Your reasoning is fallacious. The reason that we have multiple news > groups is so that one only has to listen to information one wants to. > ... If you're > interested in DECUS elections, then you should subscribe to comp.org.decus. > The fact that a broad majority of the readers of one > group overlaps the broad majority of another constituency seems to bring > out this annoying, and perverse, tendency. Posters who wish to avoid > being known as "bandwidth wasters" should consider the ANNOUNCED readership... Another "annoying and perverse tendency" is that several people who intended to cross-post (or should have cross-posted) didn't. These people posted the exact same articles in several newsgroups without cross-posting. This has the result that subscribers of multiple newsgroups (like me) read these articles in comp.org.decus and then saw the same articles in comp.os.vms! To me, this is a greater waste of bandwidth and disk space. On a more pertinent topic, I find it peculiar that those opposed to the change are so vocal while those for the change haven't posted anything in this newsgroup to defend their position. Why is that? BTW, I just received my ballot package and have voted. -- Joe Barone --------------------> m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com {gatech, decuac, sun, necntc, ukma, uiucdcs}!rayssd!m1b I'd perfer not to.
oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov (05/01/91)
In article <29APR91231050@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>, jms@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Joel M Snyder) writes: > Your reasoning is fallacious. The reason that we have multiple news > groups is so that one only has to listen to information one wants to. > There are many, many things you don't know because they haven't been > posted to comp.os.vms, and this is no reason to post them. If you're > interested in DECUS elections, then you should subscribe to comp.org.decus. > If you're interested in motorsports, then subscribe to rec.bikers (or > whatever it is). The fact that a broad majority of the readers of one > group overlaps the broad majority of another constituency seems to bring > out this annoying, and perverse, tendency. Posters who wish to avoid > being known as "bandwidth wasters" should consider the ANNOUNCED readership > of a newsfroup, (i.e., people who care about vax/vms) rather than the > COINCIDENTAL readership (i.e., people who care about vax/vms are likely > to be members of DECUS, and thus are likely to care about DECUS matters, > even if there is a whole group dedicated to DECUS matters). The reasoning is not entirely fallacious. comp.os.vms is gatewayed to info-vax where at least several hundred people with an interest in DECUS issues can be reached. These people don't have access to network news and no access to this group. I haven't made up my mind as to which side of this argument I think is right, but there is room for debate. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. Especially anything gnu.
nieland_t@kahuna.asd-yf.wpafb.af.mil (05/01/91)
In article <12450@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (M. Joseph Barone) writes: > Another "annoying and perverse tendency" is that several people > who intended to cross-post (or should have cross-posted) didn't. These > people posted the exact same articles in several newsgroups without > cross-posting. This has the result that subscribers of multiple newsgroups > (like me) read these articles in comp.org.decus and then saw the same > articles in comp.os.vms! To me, this is a greater waste of bandwidth and > disk space. These people are not posting through NEWS. They are sending the posting through a MAIL gateway as mail messages. Many of these messages are coming from volunteers who normally don't have network access but now have the access on the DECUS VAX systems which recently added Internet MAIL access (no NEWS). > > On a more pertinent topic, I find it peculiar that those opposed > to the change are so vocal while those for the change haven't posted > anything in this newsgroup to defend their position. Why is that? > I personally believe it is because they have all the material that is going out in the ballot packet, where the CON side was denied having material. > BTW, I just received my ballot package and have voted. Good Job!! (I have also voted!) Ted Nieland nieland_t@kahuna.asd-yf.wpafb.af.mil Control Data Corporation nieland@dayfac.cdc.com (513) 427-6355 ted@nieland.dayton.oh.us