[comp.os.vms] Decus BoD message

terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr.) (03/13/91)

  The following is posted for Jeff Killeen, who doesn't have posting
access to these newsgroups.  Please direct all responses to him at
<killeen@eisner.decus.org>. For reference, the parent articles are:
<18187@cs.utexas.edu> and <9103011712.AA13093@crdgw1.ge.com>.

------------------------ Begin message ------------------------

Glenn, thank you for taking the time to reply to my missive.  I believe it is
important that these issues be debated.  A couple of quick points... 

	1) Yes, it was commendable that the Board shared its thoughts with
leadership while it was still brainstorming the Third Party Technical Exhibit
Hall idea.  My point was that the idea of allowing Digital to veto who could
exhibit in the hall should have been so counter-cultural to a Board member
that the idea should have never been put forward.  What we are discussing here
is the Board's basic value and belief system. 

	2) Yes, it was commendable that the Board tried to draw CIO's into the
DECUS family.  My point was that the means chosen to do this should have been
compatible with the DECUS culture.  The culture is that DECUS information is
valuable because it is controlled by peer review and not by a vested interest.
The Board's basic value system should have found the approach suggested
unacceptable.  What would the damage to DECUS members be if leading CIO's came
to believe that all DECUS does is spoon feed its members the Digital party
line?  It could happen if they ever asked how the CIO Conference was managed. 

	3) Yes, Digital provides a couple of million dollars a year in DECUS
support.  DECUS, however, provides tens of millions of dollars in additional
revenue to Digital.  A recent, highly controlled survey by the SIG Council
proved that DEC gained 25-30 million dollars in revenue from the Fall
Symposium.  This is revenue that Digital would not have obtained if the Fall
Symposium had not happened.  My point is that the Digital tax issue is strong
evidence of the Board's mind set. They seem to act in a manner that suggests
they feel like a Digital charity case - when they should think of themselves
as equals. 

> 	For those not heavily aware of DECUS politics, it has been proposed
> that DECUS eliminate a level of management hierarchy. Jeff Killeen has written
> repeatedly in opposition to this; the board mostly support it. People reading
> the messages need to be aware that this is a current issue and part of the
> agenda. 

Glenn, as you know, the Third Party Technical Exhibit Hall and CIO issues
predate by almost a year the reorganization flap.  You are also aware that I
have been a long-time vocal critic of the Board's judgement predating the
reorganization proposal. I don't know why you threw this statement in but it
seems to suggest a cause and effect that is not true.  My concern about the
Board's judgement is *NOT* a result of the reorganization issue.  It is the
judgement that the Board has shown in the past that has caused my concern
about the reorganization since it places almost total control of the Society
in the hands of the Board with no checks and balances.  If you want to tar me
with the brush of being a long-time critic of the Board's actions, I will
accept that as being fair - but let's not fall into the trap of suggesting
that everyone's agenda is driven by his/her position on the reorganization
issue. 

> 	I think the idea is clear. There are occasional screwups by the DECUS
> BoD as by everyone else. There is not so far as I can see any attitude problem
> or vision problem. 

Glenn, I appreciate the time you have spent so far in responding, but allow me
to suggest that you need to invest some more time.  If one is charged with
evaluating a fellow employee, one tries not to do it on the basis of a single
event but on the basis of a pattern.  I contend the five actions I have listed
demonstrates a pattern of judgement that is counter-cultural to the basic
value and belief systems held by most members of the Society.  It is my
contention that their actions have gone beyond the occasional screw-up. If you
disagree with me, allow me to suggest that you invest the time to state all
the positive things the Board has done to help the membership over the last 18
months.  If we are only talking about occasional screw-ups, the positive
actions should far out number the actions I have outlined in my missive.