jms@mis.arizona.edu (Joel M Snyder) (02/28/91)
By now, you* should all have received your DECUS Board of Directors ballot form. I think that it is time to send a message to the Board that they need to be in greater touch with the membership, and that some stronger consideration of the minority viewpoint is appropriate. Therefore, I am voting as follows: pick two of the best qualified directors, and vote for them. Then, write in "Ray Kaplan" on the form, and vote for him. Make some marks so that the mark-sense machine throws out your ballot and some person has to figure out what you have done. As with any independent candidate, there is no chance that Ray would win. And you would be, in a sense, throwing your vote away. While Ray may not be the best person for the job, at least he represents a viewpoint which seems to be far away from the normal decorum that the Board normally shows. Even if you don't agree with his point of view regarding the Las Vegas Mitnick incident, I hope you agree that his questioning of the status quo is a healthy attitude, and should be encouraged among whichever board members do get elected. jms Joel M Snyder, 627 E Speedway, 85705 Phone: 602.626.8680 FAX: 602.795.0900 The Mosaic Group, Dep't of MIS, the University of Arizona BITNET: jms@arizmis Internet: jms@mis.arizona.edu SPAN: 47541::uamis::jms * you = US readers only.
nieland_t@kahuna.asd-yf.wpafb.af.mil (02/28/91)
In article <27FEB91165351@mrsvax.mis.arizona.edu>, jms@mis.arizona.edu (Joel M Snyder) writes: > By now, you* should all have received your DECUS Board of Directors ballot > form. > > I think that it is time to send a message to the Board that they need to be > in greater touch with the membership, and that some stronger consideration > of the minority viewpoint is appropriate. > > Therefore, I am voting as follows: pick two of the best qualified > directors, and vote for them. Then, write in "Ray Kaplan" on the form, and > vote for him. Make some marks so that the mark-sense machine throws out > your ballot and some person has to figure out what you have done. > > As with any independent candidate, there is no chance that Ray would win. > And you would be, in a sense, throwing your vote away. > > While Ray may not be the best person for the job, at least he represents a > viewpoint which seems to be far away from the normal decorum that the Board > normally shows. Even if you don't agree with his point of view regarding > the Las Vegas Mitnick incident, I hope you agree that his questioning of > the status quo is a healthy attitude, and should be encouraged among > whichever board members do get elected. > > jms > > Joel M Snyder, 627 E Speedway, 85705 Phone: 602.626.8680 FAX: 602.795.0900 > The Mosaic Group, Dep't of MIS, the University of Arizona > BITNET: jms@arizmis Internet: jms@mis.arizona.edu SPAN: 47541::uamis::jms > > * you = US readers only. While I agree with Joel's points, I don't agree with his method. Every vote will make a big difference in this election. The results of this election may change the course of the DECUS US Chapter. There are definitely two sides in this election and people need to vote for one side or the other. -- 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
cepek@vixvax.mgi.com (03/01/91)
In article <27FEB91165351@mrsvax.mis.arizona.edu>, jms@mis.arizona.edu (Joel M Snyder) writes: > I think that it is time to send a message to the Board that they need to be > in greater touch with the membership, and that some stronger consideration > of the minority viewpoint is appropriate. : > While Ray may not be the best person for the job, at least he represents a > viewpoint which seems to be far away from the normal decorum that the Board > normally shows. : > ...questioning of > the status quo is a healthy attitude, and should be encouraged among > whichever board members do get elected. From perusing the Biography and Candidate Statement literature which came with my DECUS ballot, I notice a few candidates which sound dissatisfied along these lines. Some excerpts: "Both the Board of Directors and the Management Council, as institutions, have failed us in several important ways. These failures must be corrected." "Our current Board selection criteria precludes us from seeking out industry `movers and shakers' who, I believe, we must embrace..." "DECUS is out of balance. I want the balance restored, without sacrificing the good we have." "Recently, however, I have noticed that some leadership in the Chapter seem more concerned with organizational matters rather than furthering the mission of the Chapter." Without naming names, I suggest that there are voting options available which seem to send messages similar to Joel's. I would hope that all concerned DECUS members would spend the time to learn about the candidates and vote wisely. Don't let apathy or procrastination keep your needs from being communicated. Vote. +----------------------------------+-----------------------------+ - - - - - - | Mike Cepek, Programmer/Analyst | Internet: CEPEK@MGI.COM | | Management Graphics, Inc. | Voice: +1 612/851-6112 | "Engage." | 1401 East 79th Street | Operator: +1 612/854-1220 | | Minneapolis, MN 55425 USA | Fax: +1 612/854-6913 | +----------------------------------+-----------------------------+ - - - - - -
bowles@stsci.EDU (Richard Bowles) (03/01/91)
I can only assume that *some* of the candidates have been following the various threads regarding the sorry state of DECUS -- any comments from them? Richard Bowles bowles@stsci.edu
mcmahon@tgv.com (John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon) (03/01/91)
In article <2325@ghost.stsci.edu>, bowles@stsci.EDU (Richard Bowles) writes:
#I can only assume that *some* of the candidates have been
#following the various threads regarding the sorry state
#of DECUS -- any comments from them?
A recent comment that I heard at a DECUS meeting was that the "upper crust" of
the DECUS leadership pays little attention to the network. This is in sharp
contrast to other elements of DECUS (e.g. Unisig, Vax SIG, Library, DECUServe,
Etc.) which use the network as a source of information and as a means to
communicate.
I see postings from various elements of the DECUS leadership every day. It's
funny how none of these postings come from board members.
Cheers,
John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon
"Although I am a member of the UNISIG Steering Committee, these opinions are my
own"mcmahon@tgv.com (John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Feb28.105123.44@kahuna.asd-yf.wpafb.af.mil>, nieland_t@kahuna.asd-yf.wpafb.af.mil writes:
#
#While I agree with Joel's points, I don't agree with his method. Every vote
#will make a big difference in this election. The results of this election
#may change the course of the DECUS US Chapter. There are definitely two sides
#in this election and people need to vote for one side or the other.
It is becoming more and more apparent to me how much of an effect this election
could have on DECUS. I would be interested in hearing more on why "you" (you
being the comp.org.decus reader) feel a particular candidate is right (or
wrong) for the job. I don't want to start a flame festival... however lets
hear some objective commentary on why someone should vote for person X.
--
John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon : MCMAHON@TGV.COM : TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TGV, Incorporated : : T GGGGGGG V V
603 Mission Street : HAVK (abha) Gur bayl : T G V V
Santa Cruz, California 95060 : bcrengvat flfgrz gb : T G GGGG V V
408-427-4366 or 800-TGV-3440 : or qrfgeblrq ol znvy : T GGGGGGG Vbowles@stsci.EDU (Richard Bowles) (03/02/91)
mcmahon@tgv.com (John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon) writes: >It is becoming more and more apparent to me how much of an effect this election >could have on DECUS. I would be interested in hearing more on why "you" (you >being the comp.org.decus reader) feel a particular candidate is right (or >wrong) for the job. I don't want to start a flame festival... however lets >hear some objective commentary on why someone should vote for person X. >-- >John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon : MCMAHON@TGV.COM : TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT >TGV, Incorporated : : T GGGGGGG V V >603 Mission Street : HAVK (abha) Gur bayl : T G V V >Santa Cruz, California 95060 : bcrengvat flfgrz gb : T G GGGG V V >408-427-4366 or 800-TGV-3440 : or qrfgeblrq ol znvy : T GGGGGGG V O.K, so what is your opinion? TGV was certainly well represented in Las Vegas and their sessions were a pleasant break from the sales hype -- but some (myself *NOT* included) could argue that those sessions represented the "edge" of the bylaws regarding third-party products and commercialism. In other words, I would assume some strong and backable opinions from you and your organization. (and you probably have some flame-resistant attire anyway) Richard Bowles bowles@stsci.edu
klr@hadron.COM (Kurt L. Reisler) (03/03/91)
I certainly hope you had the decency to ASK Ray Kaplan before you
suggested to the gathered readership that they waste a vote by writing
his name in as a candidate for the DECUS Board of Directors.
I say waste, because from a cursory look at the DECUS By-Laws and the
Policy and Procedures for the US Chapter of DECUS, there is no mechanism
for having a write-in candidate, once the candidates for an election
have been selected. However, during the candidate selection process, it
is possible to write-in candidates which do not meet the "LDEC criteria"
which are defined in the aforementioned documents.
For those who can't get at them, the following is from the Policy and
PRocedures document of the US Chapter Board:
3.1.2 Objective Criteria for Candidates
Candidates for the Board of Directors must meet the
following objective criteria:
-Must have been a DECUS U.S. Chapter member for the
last three years.
-Must have attended three symposia in the last three
fiscal years of DECUS (July 1 to June 30)
-Must have held a major leadership position(s) in DECUS
for a minimum of one year
-Must commit to the time required to hold a seat on the
Board of Directors
-Must submit a completed application by the deadlines
specified in the Election Schedule.
In addition, candidates will be evaluated on his/her
demonstrated ability to:
-Administer an organization
-Manage and influence people
-Build and mobilize a volunteer organization
-Mobilize a volunteer organization so that established
organization mission and goals are achieved
-Be an effective team member
-Communicate effectively both orally and in writing
-Have a working knowledge of DECUS
3.1.3 Petition Process
Any applicant who meets the objective criteria shall
beplaced on the ballot. This constitutes the petition
process required by the By-laws.
3.1.4 Campaigning and Electioneering Policy
3.1.4.1 Publications
Any group within DECUS that wishes to comment on the
Board of Directors' election in its publication(s) must
provide an opportunity for all candidates to make a
statement in the same issue, so that all candidates
will have an equal opportunity for visibility.
There are 8 candidates running for the US Chapter's Board of
Directors. All of them have been blessed by LDEC. I know all of them
personally. As a member of the US Chapter of DECUS, you get to vote
for 3 of them. If you had wanted Ray Kaplan on the ballot, and if Ray
was interested in being on the ballot, you could have done so several
months ago, when candidates for the positions on the board were being
sought.
You can do more good for the society by CAREFULLY reading the candidate
biographies and statements before you vote, then by throwing your vote
away.
Kurt Reisler (703) 359-6100
============================================================================
UNISIG Chairman, DECUS US Chapter | Hadron, Inc.
klr@hadron.com | 9990 Lee Highway
| Fairfax, VA 22030tencati@nssdcb.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ron Tencati) (03/04/91)
As Kurt Reisler pointed out, the time for adding new candidates was long ago. The DECUS ballots are being returned to an independent third-party accounting firm that is being paid to tally the votes. Any ballots that have been marked in such a way that the optical scanner cannot read them will simply be round-filed. LDEC, the Leadership Development and Elections Committee, will have no knowledge of any write-in candidate. They will only see the results of the valid ballots returned to them. If you want your voice heard, get in touch with your SIG Executive Committees or your LUG Chairs. These people all have accounts on the DECUS Communications System (DCS) computer system which enables DECUS leadership to communicate with each other between symposia. Not all leaders read DECUSERVE, or COMP.ORG.DECUS, but they are required (requested?) to check their DCS mail as often as they can. The leadership can speak for you, the concerned DECUS attendee, in places and circles where you cannot. The ethical issues surrounding the Mitnick incident, questions about how much DECUS is influenced by DEC - and why, the DECUS/DEXPO relationship, as well as a much larger issue, a major overhaul of the DECUS internal structure, are being debated and discussed very actively between DECUS leadership. The key word here is DEBATED. The DECUS leadership are not in total agreement on how these issues should be handled or resolved. But they are discussing them in a reasonably- professional manner for a bunch of volunteer leaders, and your voices have not been ignored in their discussions. Leadership is very much plugged in to what concerns the users. But if you want to be a part of the change, instead of just part of the "static", let your immediate DECUS leadership know your feelings. Don't just post something here. Call somebody. If you want to get involved in DECUS leadership in hopes that your voice can help change things - go for it! There is usually a session titled "Call for DECUS Volunteers" or "So, you want to be a DECUS Leader" sponsored by LDEC. These sessions provide the background information for how to get involved in DECUS and how to get into leadership. The Board also has an open Board meeting that any symposium registrant can attend and be heard, so avenues exist. Bitching about things is great, it lets us blow steam, but if we all blow smoke, nothing gets done. Nothing changes. Instead of philosophizing about how things "should be done", consider lending a hand, a voice, and some time to make things get done. Then you too can be flamed by the symposia attendees who think all of DECUS leadership stinks... Ron Tencati Seminars Coordinator, Security SIG Spring Volunteer Coordinator, VAX SIG ST Systems Corp, Lanham, MD
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (03/05/91)
In article <4496@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, tencati@nssdcb.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ron Tencati) writes: >If you want your voice heard, get in touch with your SIG Executive >Committees or your LUG Chairs. These people all have accounts on the >DECUS Communications System (DCS) computer system which enables DECUS >leadership to communicate with each other between symposia. Not all >leaders read DECUSERVE, or COMP.ORG.DECUS, but they are required >(requested?) to check their DCS mail as often as they can. I don't suppose that you could post Internet addresses for the appropriate committee members? Or is DCS not linked into any network? Or I have to go get an audience with SIG leadership first? Hmm. At least I was able to pick up the phone and bitch at my congressman on how he voted on the use of force in the Persian, er Arabian Gulf crisis. Easy to do, since the congressman has a staff to answer the phone. >The leadership can speak for you, the concerned DECUS attendee, >in places and circles where you cannot. If the problem is with the leadership..... >The ethical issues surrounding the Mitnick incident, questions about >how much DECUS is influenced by DEC - and why, the DECUS/DEXPO >relationship, as well as a much larger issue, a major overhaul of the >DECUS internal structure, are being debated and discussed very >actively between DECUS leadership. The key word here is DEBATED. The >DECUS leadership are not in total agreement on how these issues should >be handled or resolved. But they are discussing them in a reasonably- >professional manner for a bunch of volunteer leaders, and your voices >have not been ignored in their discussions. Leadership is very much >plugged in to what concerns the users. DECUS leadership has not conveyed this discussion to the masses. Or maybe I'm wrong, but there's nothing sitting in my mailbox which says "Hello DECUS member, these are the issues we are discussing." Do I have to pay more money to get onto DECUSERVE to be heard? >But if you want to be a part of the change, instead of just part of >the "static", let your immediate DECUS leadership know your feelings. >Don't just post something here. Call somebody. If you want to get >involved in DECUS leadership in hopes that your voice can help change >things - go for it! There is usually a session titled "Call for DECUS >Volunteers" or "So, you want to be a DECUS Leader" sponsored by LDEC. There should be another alternative to entering DECUS leadership other than showing up at Symposia. I was quite disturbed that one of the "requirements" for being a nominated BoD candidate was to show up at symposia for 3 years running. >These sessions provide the background information for how to get >involved in DECUS and how to get into leadership. The Board also has >an open Board meeting that any symposium registrant can attend and be >heard, so avenues exist. Not everyone can afford to go to Symposium twice a year. With the current financial situtation of the University, I'll be lucky to go once a decade. We have several electronic networks. You have access, the UNISIG chair does. Why not any of the BoD members ? How long does it take to electronically post minutes to here and comp.os.vms? >blow smoke, nothing gets done. Nothing changes. Instead of >philosophizing about how things "should be done", consider lending a >hand, a voice, and some time to make things get done. Then you too >can be flamed by the symposia attendees who think all of DECUS >leadership stinks... You sound bitter. Not everyone should be hanged in effegy. At the same time, if DECUS, the body, claims me as a member, I have the right as a member to flame. Marshmellows anyone? complain. Reform may be dying in the Soviet Union, but we have the right to introduce it to the DECUS Board of Directors. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
mcmahon@tgv.com (John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon) (03/05/91)
In article <2330@ghost.stsci.edu>, bowles@stsci.EDU (Richard Bowles) writes: #mcmahon@tgv.com (John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon) writes: # #O.K, so what is your opinion? TGV was certainly well represented in #Las Vegas and their sessions were a pleasant break from the sales #hype -- but some (myself *NOT* included) could argue that those #sessions represented the "edge" of the bylaws regarding third-party #products and commercialism. Well, I guess my first comment is that many of the sessions we give are standard technical talks. They are intended to be information sharing... like any other DECUS talk. Obviously, our update session does cover our product. I think it follows the same format that anyone else (DEC, Other Third Parties, Etc.) has used at DECUS. We don't say prices, we try to keep the talk to features and futures, and we try to answer user questions. We are conscience of the rules, and we do our best to stick to them. The group who does DECUS scheduling ultimately decides what is appropriate and what is not at any given symposium. As long as that entity is unbiased (which I think it is) I think DECUS will do fine. One note is that we won't be giving an update session at Atlanta. We submitted it, but I have gotten the impression that all update sessions were dropped due to lack of hours. That seems reasonable to me. As for the election... Well, I am still gathering opinions on who I am going to vote for. I have read the ballot carefully, I read the ADL report which has generated a fair amount of the controversy, I've seen the comments posted to the network (most notably Killeen's and Everhart's), and I have spoken to a few folks to get their opinions. After all that, I'm looking for more input, hense my original posting on the subject. Somehow, I suspect I'm not the only one. Cheers, John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon : MCMAHON@TGV.COM : TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TGV, Incorporated : : T GGGGGGG V V 603 Mission Street : HAVK (abha) Gur bayl : T G V V Santa Cruz, California 95060 : bcrengvat flfgrz gb : T G GGGG V V 408-427-4366 or 800-TGV-3440 : or qrfgeblrq ol znvy : T GGGGGGG V
tihor@acf3.NYU.EDU (Stephen Tihor) (03/05/91)
Actually BOD members such as Art have had email access in the past. And with DECUSERVE getting on the nets will automtically have it ing the future. Fact is that volunteer organizations have this tremendous organizational inertia and really compressed effective working time. So things are slow until someone takes a project and runs with it. Then you get such triumphs as "DECUS UUCP"/VMSnet. LUGs are a fine channel to leadership. Being at smposia regularly does correlate well with success as a BOD member because of the connetions and need to attend regularly as a member. If its a problem for someone who wants to run frankly, member nominated rather than LDEC nominated candidates are still an option. I'll sign almost anyone's pettion to run. Frankly I expect LDEC will take that comment to heart. Also I hat eto say it but USPS works preety well too.
nieland_t@kahuna.asd-yf.wpafb.af.mil (03/05/91)
In article <009451A5.83C422A0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>, sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: > In article <4496@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, tencati@nssdcb.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ron Tencati) writes: > > I don't suppose that you could post Internet addresses for the appropriate > committee members? Or is DCS not linked into any network? Or I have to go get > an audience with SIG leadership first? > At the current point in time, there is not anyway to contact DECUS electronically. There is a project going to connect DECUServe and DCS to the Internet. It is still a couple of months away from any hookups. Until that time, I am willing to accept any messages at DECUS@NIELAND.DAYTON.OH.US which I will transfer to DCS (via modem) and pass on to the approriate parties. (Note: Most of the BoD members do have internet addresses and have indicated they read INFO-VAX (though they are usually not up to date). > > We have several electronic networks. You have access, the UNISIG chair does. > Why not any of the BoD members ? How long does it take to electronically post > minutes to here and comp.os.vms? > The society is currently discussing set up access to NEWS and newsgroups like comp.org.decus to notify membership what is going on in DECUS. The best way to help this out is to contact members of the Leadership and indicate that you think this a is a good idea. 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 DECUS US Chapter VAX SIG Steering Committee/L&T SIG Librairan/Library Committee National LUG Council .... DECUS Does need more leadership volunteers.....
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (03/05/91)
In article <14660003@acf3.NYU.EDU>, tihor@acf3.NYU.EDU (Stephen Tihor) writes: >channel to leadership. Being at smposia regularly does correlate well >with success as a BOD member because of the connetions and need to >attend regularly as a member. I think this will cause problems for anyone who doesn't have a monster budget to travel to symposia every year, but who could still contribute. Consider that symposia cost a cool $1000+ (if you go to one on your "coast") to go between hotel, symposia fees, etc... >Frankly I expect LDEC will take that comment to heart. Also I >hat eto say it but USPS works preety well too. Sure it does. So howcome BoD is not exploiting Internet? Or USPS? I've yet to see an "official" statement from DECUS BoD on the Miltnik incident. Shall I send a registered letter to request one? Reform may be dying in the Soviet Union, but we have the right to introduce it to the DECUS Board of Directors. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
tencati@nssdcb.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ron Tencati) (03/06/91)
In article <009451A5.83C422A0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>, sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >I don't suppose that you could post Internet addresses for the appropriate >committee members? Or is DCS not linked into any network? Or I have to go get >an audience with SIG leadership first? I don't know who-all in leadership has internet access. As Steve Tihor pointed out, there are efforts afoot to get the DCS machine connected to Internet. Currently, all one can do is forward mail FROM DCS to an Internet mailbox. There are certain individuals who have internet accounts, but nobody has ever put them all together. The technical problem with getting this access is that DEC owns the computer system, and is finally agreeing to connect that system to the internet. They are concerned about hackers banging away on the system, and of DECUS leaders subscribing to umpteen mailing lists and filling up the disks. Since DEC supplies the system (and the office space it's in, and the system manager, etc), DECUS can only ask for certain services to be provided on the machine. Re: Mitnick et al: >DECUS leadership has not conveyed this discussion to the masses. Or maybe I'm >wrong, but there's nothing sitting in my mailbox which says "Hello DECUS >member, these are the issues we are discussing." Do I have to pay more money to >get onto DECUSERVE to be heard? You *could* get onto DECUSERVE, but it's not required. Rest assured that your comments are falling on "Board Ears". I think a good suggestion would be to request that the minutes from the monthly Board teleconference be posted here. However, this list is considered to be "Public", and some unresolved issues are preferred to be held "in private" until a consensus is reached. I think you could understand the sensitivity here. Not that anyone is trying to "hide" anything from the general membership. Re: Symposia Membership: >There should be another alternative to entering DECUS leadership other than >showing up at Symposia. I was quite disturbed that one of the "requirements" >for being a nominated BoD candidate was to show up at symposia for 3 years >running. This requirement is, IMHO, meant to try to provide candidates who are knowledgeable about "current events", and who are probably involved in DECUS leadership at some other level. Votes count, so "Joe attendee" is probably not going to win a write-in campaign, since the membership at large won't know who he/she is. Not to say it *couldn't* happen... >Not everyone can afford to go to Symposium twice a year. With the current >financial situtation of the University, I'll be lucky to go once a decade. I don't read the official rules on running for the board, but I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule. [Could you put together a PSS? If you can, your airfare and hotel (one day) will be paid by the Seminars Committee, since your seminar generates additional revenue, it covers (some of) your expenses] Etcetera: >>blow smoke, nothing gets done. Nothing changes. Instead of >>philosophizing about how things "should be done", consider lending a >>hand, a voice, and some time to make things get done. Then you too >>can be flamed by the symposia attendees who think all of DECUS >>leadership stinks... > >You sound bitter. Not everyone should be hanged in effegy. At the same time, if >DECUS, the body, claims me as a member, I have the right as a member to flame. I'm not bitter, but I'll let you speak for yourself: >>The leadership can speak for you, the concerned DECUS attendee, >>in places and circles where you cannot. > >If the problem is with the leadership..... >... >Marshmellows anyone? I don't think people even know who they don't like, so they just say "Leadership". *I'm* Leadership. My Sig-Chair is on the Management Council. He's Leadership. Do you have a problem with us? John McMahon and Steve Tihor are Leadership. Are they your problem? As an aside, Ray Kaplan stepped down as a working group chair a few symposia ago, giving up his slot on the VAX SIG Steering Committee. He is still an active session presenter, but he is no longer in DECUS "Leadership". Maybe we should focus on issues, and identify which "branch" of the leadership we are talking about before all of "leadership" gets flamed. We leaders don't all have the same priviliges and access to the same discussion circles, so we aren't all involved in all issues. But we all get scorched equally. Ron Tencati Tencati@Nssdca.Gsfc.Nasa.Gov
deck@inland.com (03/08/91)
**************************************************************
NOTE: THIS ITEM IS BEING POSTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
THE POSTER CANNOT CONFIRM NOR DENY THE ACCURACY OR VERACITY
OF ANY OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN.
ALSO, POSTING DOESN'T NO IMPLY SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSTION TO
ANY OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED.
****************************************************************
D E C U S -I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 7-Mar-1991 11:05am EST
From: David Johnson
JOHNSON_D
Dept: Nat'l LUG Council
Tel No: 408-756-4544
TO: See Below
Subject: Update
At the last minute, I got a response from Jim Welborne, and have updated
my article to include it. Here is the updated version:
The DECUS Board of Directors has announced its intention to
propose a change in the DECUS by-laws which will significantly
modify the DECUS organizational structure. This change must be
ratified by a two-thirds vote of the entire membership.
The change calls for a reorganization of DECUS, as suggested by
the Arthur D. Little (ADL) consulting group which performed an
organizational audit of DECUS. An excerpt from the concepts
document being prepared by the Board describes the primary
organizational change:
"The recommended change merges the existing Board and Management Council
into a new governing body composed of elements of both. This document will
refer to that new body as the "Board Group" (BG).
The new Board of Directors is composed formally of twelve elected members,
one voting Digital representative, one non-voting ex-officio member (the
DECUS Chief of Staff) and one Digital alternate. In this document, use of
the term "Board" refers to this group.
The "Board Group", as defined here, comprises the Board; the Chairs of the
following units: National LUG Council, SIG Council, Symposium Committee,
Seminars Unit, Communications Committee, and Library Committee; the Chair
of the Elections and Protocols Committee (EPCOM); and senior staff members
designated by the Chief of Staff and approved by the Board."
The Board Group meets as a whole to discuss policy and operational
issues, but only the Board of Directors votes. Operational units,
such as the National LUG Council and the SIG Council, may speak
to issues, but not vote on them. During executive sessions, only
the voting members may be present.
This change is being promoted as a means for eliminating the conflict
between the BoD and the MC, and for making DECUS management more
efficient and productive.
At present, the Board and Management Council each have a say in the
governing of the Chapter. While the Board theoretically has ultimate
authority in all matters, in fact much has been delegated to the MC.
Often, there are overlaps in the perceived sphere of influences, and the
relationship becomes contentious.
This seems to solve the problem by eliminating all authority from the
Management Council.
The proposal has been met with a significant amount of protest from
the "middle management" of DECUS. They feel that
1. They are being disenfranchised; that there is no real reason
to change so dramatically, that this is a takeover attempt by
the Board, (and some say by DEC); and, even more, that
2. There is something terribly wrong with the process by which
this is taking place. While there is no immediate crisis in
DECUS, this change is being rushed through without proper
debate by the Chapter membership. It is perceived by some
that there is an active attempt to stifle any comment which
might be contrary to the wishes of the Board.
Now there is an election for three seats on the Board of Directors;
and the membership is being asked to select candidates for these
seats without being fully informed on what may be the most important
issue facing DECUS today, and the stands each of the candidates
take on that issue.
You, the members of DECUS, will be asked to ratify or deny this
bylaw change; and, when the ballot measure hits the street, there
will be precious little time for debate. So, in the interest of
illumination, I went to the candidates and offered each of them
an opportunity to answer the following question:
"Which of the following statements is closest to your stand on
the proposed reorganization of DECUS?
a) I am for it, and generally support the ADL recommendations.
b) I am for reorganization, but in a direction significantly
different from those articulated in the ADL recommendations.
c) I do not believe reorganization at this time is a wise move.
If you wish to add a short (two or three sentence) qualification
IN ADDITION TO STATING A PREFERENCE I will be happy to print it
verbatim."
While there was a very short time period allowed for response ---
the question went out at noon on Thursday, and we had to go to press
on Tuesday evening --- I did verify that each of the candidates had
an opportunity to read the request and respond. Seven of the eight
candidates did so, and their responses are reproduced below. One of
the candidates, Bill Brindley, chose not to respond. Brindley's
position, however, is clear: he has spearheaded the move toward
reorganization, and is in favor of it.
Here are the responses I received:
****************************************************************************
Date: 4-Mar-1991 01:23pm EST
From: Margaret Knox
KNOX
Dept: SIG Council / MC
Tel No: 512-471-3241
TO: See Below
Subject: RE: Candidate's Statement
Dave
My statement covers me, if need be.
Of the three (I had trouble with true false in school) I would characterize
me as
I am in favor of change (evolution) when needed. I do not believe that the
process used in this reorg attempt was/is sound and I do not believe that
the reorganization as proposed will benefit the chapter. In fact I believe
it will cause us to be more Board driven, more Digital driven, and break
important communication lines among units. I also believe that it will
cause the Chapter to suspend useful forward motion, while all the parties
figure out how to get basic organizational work done. We should "just say
no" to this reorganization plan.
****************************************************************************
D E C U S - I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 4-Mar-1991 12:24pm EST
From: James McGlinchey
MCGLINCHEY
Dept: Board of Directors
Tel No: (215)284-1741 home
TO: David Johnson ( JOHNSON_D )
Subject: RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009079
Dave -
I made a statement regarding the proposed reorganization in
my candidate's statement.
I think that publishing any thing other than what I have
said in that statement would appear to be electioneering.
Please feel free to extract verbatim from my candidate's
statement.
Jim McGlinchey
****************************************************************************
D E C U S - I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 2-Mar-1991 08:11am EST
From: Sandy Krueger
KRUEGER
Dept: Management Council
Tel No: 908-725-3117
TO: David Johnson ( JOHNSON_D )
Subject: RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009078
I guess my response falls somewhere between B and C. I believe the current
strucuture needs massaging, not total revamping. In particular, I would
redesign the responsibilities of the Board, as well as the objective
criteria for Board membership. I see a Board made up of Industry
"Personalities", related to Digital, whose influence and leadership would
propel DECUS into a position of power related to discussions about the
future of the Industry. Secondly, I would like to charter a major study on
the DEC/DECUS relationship, primarily related to the staff, and staff
director position, and how these are meshed into the top of the
organization. I believe our current handling of this issue does not recognize
proper staff/volunteer relationships in not-for-profit associations.
Further I believe the current staff relationship is damaging to the
Society.
Thanks for the opportunity.
****************************************************************************
D E C U S - I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 28 Feb-1991 06:27pm EST
From: Jeffrey S. Jalbert
JALBERT_J
Dept: VAX SIG
Tel No: 614-587-0157
TO: David Johnson ( JOHNSON_D )
Subject: RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009070
David,
My apologies for the length of this. A few words is what you asked for, I'm
afraid that I wrote a bit more than that. My feelings on this subject are not
simple, Im afraid.
I realize that ADL is a hot topic. I have had several calls about this very
same question. My position is clear and reasonably consistent.
As a member of the original ODTF which constructed the current DECUS model, I
was quite surprised and taken aback when the suggestion came that that model
was broken. I felt that the model should have worked. I participated in the
early Management Council and things were working, at least at the start.
As the debate has progressed on this subject, it has become quite clear to me
that the current DECUS leadership process is broken at the upper levels. The
debate itself and the way it has been carried out is evidence of that.
I believe I am an open person. At least, I think I believe in open processes.
The processes that have been used with respect to ADL have been uncomfortably
closed for my mind.
Now, I was aware of criticism of the entire audit process even before the
first committee meeting to draft an RFP took place. Since this initial
criticism, the stridency of the critics' position and their tone has been quite
high. It is difficult to have an open process when there is such extreme and
at times, venomous, criticism.
Thus, it seems to me that the upper management is broken and that the breaks
are due to the behavior on both sides of the issue.
The current leadership polarization is not at all acceptable. A continuance
of that polarization for further study is not acceptable. I believe that, at
this time, moving forward with ADL is the best of two alternatives.
As our past experience with organizational models suggests, any organizational
structure can fail. What we must do is attempt to form a better and more open
process in the future. For that we need people who have that as their vision
--------------------------------- NEW PAGE ---------------------------------
=[24H[K[24HPress RETURN to continue or EXIT SCREEN to exit[24;48H [24;48H[24H[K[24H[;1m[m[20l7[r87[?6l8[15;1f[1;1f[J[m[20l7[r87[?6l8
heal our current divisions.
****************************************************************************
Date: 4-Mar-1991 05:04pm EST
From: Emily Kitchen
KITCHEN
Dept: Symposia Committee
Tel No: 804-783-8613
TO: David Johnson ( JOHNSON_D )
Subject: RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009083
Dave, I think that the plan as fully annotated by ADL later has merit. I
think that we should enlarge the BoD. I expressed concerns from the
beginning as to how the Unit chairs would continue to have a place to
discuss common/conflicting issues. The Management Council was a place that
that could be done. As I said in my article, I think we must stop
bickering and get to the business of DECUS. I do not believe that we
(DECUS) should be 'run' by Digital. We should not do something because
they 'won't play' if we don't use their rules. They are partners in the
effort, not the policy makers.
****************************************************************************
Date: 5-Mar-1991 10:07am EST
From: Ralph Stamerjohn
STAMERJOHN
Dept: None
Tel No: 314 532-7708
TO: David Johnson ( JOHNSON_D )
Subject: RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009085
Dave,
sorry for delay, I read your message and then got the flue while thinking
about the answer.
I personally will vote against the proposed bylaw changes. I see the need
for some evolutionary changes, but not the drastic measures being proposed.
Ralph
****************************************************************************
D E C U S -I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 6-Mar-1991 08:52pm EST
From: Jim Welborne
WELBORNE
Dept: HOME:(219) 879-3584
Tel No: WORK: 219-232-3992
TO: See Below
Subject: RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009113
Dave:
My reply would be C I do not believe reorganization is a good thing at this
time.
My addtional remark would be:
We should spend our time pursuing how we must change our products and services
to be more in touch with the computing profession.
Jim
****************************************************************************
So much for factual reporting. Everything I have presented above is directly
quoted. As a long-term member of DECUS, and one who has spent two
years on the Management Council, I would like to editorialize for a
couple of minutes. I want to emphasize that what follows is my own
assessment of the situation.
First, DECUS has always tried mightily to be a concensus organization. In
that respect we are patterned after Digital. When we find ourselves at
odds, it is standard practice to discuss the issue to death, until we
can reach a concensus (even if only a negotiated one). There is a
definite feel that we are ignoring this tradition with respect to the
reorganization issue; that we are rushing to judgement. Something is
wrong when we choose to do that, or are forced to do that.
If there were something critically amiss in DECUS, taking immediate
action would be warranted; but that is not the case. Certainly there
are serious issues ahead of us...but none are so time-critical that we
should suspend our normal "grind it up" philosophy.
Second, one important result of the proposed reorganization will be to
wipe out a set of checks and balances that have been in place for some
time now. It would be similar, I think, to dispensing with the Senate
and governing with the House of Representatives. The Board is elected
by the membership at large; theoretically, that gives them a mandate
from the grass roots. In practice, so little information is dispensed
to the membership at large that the voting tends to depend more on
name recognition than on issues. The Management Council, on the other
hand, is drawn from senior leadership, and is composed of the best
of the operating units, the "doers" of the Society. They currently
balance the Board; that balance will be lost.
It may be that a reorganization of DECUS is in the best interests of
the Society. But it is likely, in my judgement, that it should take
place in a manner quite different from what is being proposed. And
it certainly should take place slowly, with much discussion.
Haste can make disaster.
****************************************************************************
D E C U S -I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 6-Mar-1991 08:52pm EST
From: Jim Welborne
WELBORNE
Dept: HOME:(219) 879-3584
Tel No: WORK: 219-232-3992
TO: See Below
Subject: RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009113
Dave:
My reply would be C I do not believe reorganization is a good thing at this
time.
My addtional remark would be:
We should spend our time pursuing how we must change our products and services
to be more in touch with the computing profession.
Jimklr@hadron.COM (Kurt L. Reisler) (03/09/91)
In article <009451A5.83C422A0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >In article <4496@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, tencati@nssdcb.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ron Tencati) writes: >I don't suppose that you could post Internet addresses for the appropriate >committee members? Or is DCS not linked into any network? Or I have to go get >an audience with SIG leadership first? You have had no trouble getting in touch with me, and I am one of those DECUS leaders (VOLUNTEERS) you seek. In addition, I was able to get you some of the documentation you requested, at no small amount of pain, at 1200 baud, on a drain-bamaged GRiD 1101. >DECUS leadership has not conveyed this discussion to the masses. Or maybe I'm >wrong, but there's nothing sitting in my mailbox which says "Hello DECUS >member, these are the issues we are discussing." Do I have to pay more money to >get onto DECUSERVE to be heard? At the moment, yes. One of the things that is being debated among the "leadership" is whether or not to make DECUServe no cost to DECUS members. >There should be another alternative to entering DECUS leadership other than >showing up at Symposia. I was quite disturbed that one of the "requirements" >for being a nominated BoD candidate was to show up at symposia for 3 years >running. There is. Get involved with the LUGS. Unfortunately, a LOT of DECUS work gets done at symposia. The amount of time it takes to be a DECUS leader is sometimes daunting. Try to explain to your boss/wife (maybe the same?) that you are going to be away at DECUS meetings 4 weeks a year, and there is more time taken up at home. >We have several electronic networks. You have access, the UNISIG chair does. >Why not any of the BoD members ? How long does it take to electronically post >minutes to here and comp.os.vms? Some do, others don't. It takes time just to get the meeting minutes compiled and approved. The exception (of course) is the hasty "unofficial" minutes which occasionally appear here and elsewhere. >You sound bitter. Not everyone should be hanged in effegy. At the same time, if >DECUS, the body, claims me as a member, I have the right as a member to flame. >Marshmellows anyone? "Flaming only generates heat, discussions lead to solutions" Kurt Reisler (703) 359-6100 ============================================================================ UNISIG Chairman, DECUS US Chapter | Hadron, Inc. ..!{uunet|sundc|rlgvax|netxcom|decuac}!hadron!klr | 9990 Lee Highway Sysop, Fido 109/101 The Bear's Den (703) 671-0598 | Fairfax, VA 22030