ctp@cs.utexas.edu (Clyde T. Poole) (03/01/91)
The following is posted at the request of Jeff Killeen. Please make all replies to him directly at killeen@eisner.decus.com. ----- There is a growing issue in some circles of DECUS volunteers that needs to be brought to the attention of a wider audience. This concern is triggered by the following two continuing trends regarding recent DECUS Board actions: 1) The current DECUS Board has ceased objectively evaluating issues related to the Society's relationship with Digital. 2) As a result of this lack of objectivity, membership interests are not being protected and actions are being taken that are not in the membership's interest. This has led to the concern that, unless there is a significant change soon in the current DECUS Board, there is a clear and present danger that Digital will gain excessive control of the Society. This should be a concern to all, not because it is Digital gaining control, but because it is a vested interest gaining control which does not share all the same values, goals, and needs of the membership of the Society. In fact, as with any vested interest, sometimes its values, goals, and needs are actually at odds with those of the general membership. Those who share this concern should seek change in the current DECUS Board. What will follow is 1) a summary of five recent current DECUS Board actions, 2) an in-depth look at these five actions, and 3) some conclusions based on the general trend these actions indicate. I believe that most of you will be as deeply concerned as some of us are after you finish reading this. Please consider the following facts about five actions taken by the current DECUS Board over the last 18 months: 1) The current DECUS Board proposed a DECUS event in which Digital would be allowed veto power over who could participate. This would have been the first case where Digital was given veto power where no proprietary information was involved. In effect a group with a strong vested interest would have been able to censor what information exchange DECUS could engage in. 2) The current DECUS Board proposed a CIO conference where DECUS's involvement was primarily to act as the banker and lend its good name to a Digital managed activity. In effect this placed a group with a strong vested interest in a position where it could control the information being provided at a DECUS Event. 3) The current DECUS President attempted to stop a technical achievement award from being given to a DECUS volunteer. The action of the President was taken at the urging of a Digital employee who was unhappy with the fact it was being given to an employee of one of Digital's competitors. In effect this almost allowed the concerns of an individual with a strong vested interest to override the recognition of an outstanding contribution to the user community. 4) The current DECUS Board consented to pay Digital $122,000 in "taxes" without resolving up front how negative cash flow years would be handled. In effect this was a one-sided deal. 5) The recent Board issued a resolution stating "DECUS is tied to the success of Digital in meeting the needs of its users. In support of the DECUS/DIGITAL Partnership, the Board encourages efforts by DECUS leaders and members that support DIGITAL in these economically challenging times." In effect this is the current DECUS Board calling for DECUS volunteers to "think vendor". Unfortunately, since there is a limited amount of creative energy in DECUS, this could be at the expense of "think users". While we all want to support Digital in one way or another, the mission of the Society is to support the user, not a vested interest. If we were dealing with only one or two of these actions, one might be able to write them off as momentary lapses in judgment. However, when they are constantly recurring even after the actions have been called into question, one begins to come to the inescapable conclusion that these actions are the result of what has become a deep and embedded mind set and that, when it comes to the DECUS Board, "Digital has it now". What follows is an in-depth look at the current DECUS Board's actions. I. THE THIRD PARTY TECHNICAL EXHIBIT HALL This proposal, drafted by the current DECUS Board, involved establishing a separate exhibit hall in which third party vendors could set up booths at Symposium. The booths were to be kept low key and the primary purpose was information exchange. The need is obvious - the existence of DEXPO proves it. As proposed, however, participation would be restricted. Quoting from the announcement by the current DECUS Board: "Therefore, it is the sense of the DECUS U.S. Chapter Board of Directors that a separate technical exhibit hall containing third party vendors having a relationship with Digital Equipment Corporation be provided at selected DECUS National Symposia." They went on to explain that they were proposing Digital CSO's and what that meant: "We are looking at the category CSO, which includes CMP, SCMP, ISV, and many other groups. The exact definition hasn't come back to us yet. We believe this is the largest category of vendor to include some kind of relationship with Digital other than customer." They also explained why they were suggesting the restriction: "From discussions at high levels it seems to be a "given" that an exhibit hall open to all would seriously jeopardize our partnership relationship with Digital. By introducing the restriction to CSO's that we have been able to come up with something which could fly." Many DECUS volunteers felt very uncomfortable with the "DECUS" name being used for an event that is only open to vendors approved by a strong non-DECUS vested interest. The objections were not related to the concept of a third party exhibit hall, but to the concept of allowing Digital the right to restrict who could participate. Digital has made enough "unfriendly" moves in the third party arena in the past to justify some caution. This proposal died because of strong negative reaction and the unwillingness of the current DECUS Board to negotiate this issue with Digital. THE DECUS CULTURE: The mission of DECUS is information exchange. Today many third party vendors who are Digital competitors give sessions at Symposia and provide information to other services such as DECUServe. Third party peripheral vendors, 4GL vendors, and database vendors have given sessions in the past at Symposia. It is counter-cultural for a Society whose mission is information exchange to establish an event where a party with a vested interest can censor the information being exchanged. THE USER ANGLE: What would happen if the proposal as outlined by the current DECUS Board was successful? Most likely many vendors would not find it cost effective to staff a booth at both DEXPO and DECUS. Again, assuming success, these vendors would pull out of DEXPO. If Digital would at first only exclude a small number of vendors DEXPO could collapse. Once DEXPO was gone, Digital could then be free to blacklist an ever-increasing number of vendors since it would be controlling the only game in town. Allowing a monopoly on information to develop that is controlled by a strong vested interest is detrimental to the Society's membership and should have been seen to be so by the DECUS Board. THE DIGITAL ANGLE: A strong case should have been made that this exclusion is not in Digital's interest either. Most users know, when it comes to Digital peripherals, you may be able to buy a better disk drive but you can't pay more for a disk drive. It's little naive to expect that by keeping third party peripheral vendors out of this special exhibit hall Digital would be able to "protect" their customers from this information. More importantly, Digital would be far better off in the long run if those third party peripherals protect a cost sensitive Digital account from an IBM or SUN attack. Additionally, by fostering this activity, Digital would help provide an effective communication channel for complementary products that would strengthen Digital's acceptance. Digital's primary interest should be how to gain the greatest acceptance of their computing strategy. The DECUS Board should have found this proposal counter-cultural and, rather than expending their energy on trying to justify the exclusion, should have used their energy negotiating the issue with Digital. II. THE CIO CONFERENCE This project involved DECUS establishing a new conference targeted for CIO's, the theory being that DECUS was not serving this group of users and the goodwill that DECUS would gain would be useful for others in their organization justifying DECUS products and services. The problem is that, while this was advertised as a DECUS event, it, in fact, was not. Quoting from Mr. Bill Brindley's announcement message: "Digital will handle the planning, setup, reservations, facilities, all speaker arrangements... all logistics, support and administration. Digital will use its contact list to reach CIO's for us. The CIO Conference will be October 9-10 in Tucson, Arizona. The dates were specified by Ken Olsen to allow him to participate as the Keynote Speaker. A professional moderator will be used. "No DECUS resources (volunteers, staff) are required for this event. All support is being provided by Digital. The DECUS Board will authorize the up front funding to setup the CIO Conference. Registration Fees will be charged to effect a "break-even" event." The conference lost $76,000 because it only attracted about 80 attendees rather than the 150 to 200 that were anticipated. The loss was covered by DECUS funds, although this is not the primary issue. Advertising the CIO Conference as a DECUS event was false advertising. This is not what the DECUS culture is all about. DECUS is peer to peer information exchange. DECUS products and services are managed by committees made up of volunteers who have a concern about the information being exchanged. This very closely follows the academic model where peers plan what information should be sought, create a competitive environment seeking the best information to exchange, and through peer review insure that the best and most useful information wins the right to be presented. This conference did not have the traditional DECUS safeguard of advanced peer planning and review. Instead it was virtually controlled by a vendor with a strong vested interest. Clearly this vendor would tend to seek information in its best interest. The DECUS Board should have found the lack of user/peer planning and review counter-cultural and not in the membership's best interest. The DECUS Board should have brought noted CIO's into the planning process and helped them established a CIO committee or council. This would have allowed for the peer planning and review that is the normal procedure in other DECUS activities. Many feel this unbiased information exchange, with peer review, is what is perceived as DECUS's true value and strength. III. THE DALE COY LDEC AWARD FOR TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENT Each year the DECUS LDEC committee sponsors a series of achievement awards. Some of the awards are given for volunteer contributions and some of the awards are given for technical achievement. Mr. Dale Coy was nominated for a technical achievement award. The LDEC awards committee voted Mr. Coy the award. When Mr. Andy Powderly, the DECUS Executive Director, a Digital employee, was informed of this he contacted Mr. Bill Brindley, the DECUS President. He told Mr. Brindley that it was inappropriate for Mr. Coy to receive an award because he worked for a Digital competitor. Mr. Brindley contacted Mr. R. J. Hopp, the Chair of the awards committee, and informed him this award could not be given to Mr. Coy because it would cause Mr. Coy to get fired. Mr. Hopp then contacted various members of the awards committee. Mr. Coy was mailed a "you have been considered but we have chosen not to award you at this time" rejection letter. An interesting side note is that Mr. Powderly had contacted me in my role as DECUServe Chair several months earlier and requested that I remove Mr. Coy as a DECUServe Moderator. He felt it was inappropriate to have a Digital competitor in a volunteer role. I informed Mr. Powderly I would not fire Mr. Coy because he was in no way exposed to proprietary Digital information. Mr. Powderly then suggested if Mr. Coy's employer found out he had a DECUS volunteer role Mr. Coy would be fired. I contacted Mr. Coy and he assured me he was not concerned about being fired. After the rejection letter was mailed it was learned Mr. Coy was leaving his current employer and going to work for a company that was not a competitor of Digital. Mr. Brindley then called Mr. Coy to inform him he was being given the award. When Mr. Coy asked Mr. Brindley why he had received the rejection letter he has told it was mailed by mistake. A personal note first. Of all the actions being discussed here this is the one I find the most personally distasteful. The reason why the award was pulled was to accommodate a vested interest. The reason given to the awards committee, however, was that the action was being taken to protect Mr. Coy. To be blunt, that was dishonest. Mr. Coy was never asked for his opinion and the primary motivation had nothing to do with protecting him. This action again is counter-cultural to DECUS. If we are an independent Society organized for information exchange, when someone makes an outstanding contribution that is clearly of enormous benefit to the users it shouldn't matter who that person works for. The DECUS Board of directors should be concerned with recognizing and rewarding superior services to the users and not the excessive sensitivities of a vested interest. IV. THE DIGITAL "TAX" ISSUE There have been on again/off again discussions over the years between the DECUS Board and Digital about DECUS paying taxes in those years where DECUS's revenue exceeds it expenses. For tax purposes, DECUS is part of Digital and Digital is obligated to pay taxes on any "profits". The current DECUS Board decided that, starting with Fiscal Year 1990, we would begin paying taxes on our paper "profit". The DECUS Board is charged with insuring the business welfare of DECUS. Whether you agree or disagree with DECUS paying taxes to Digital, it is the Board's responsibility to insure that this is implemented in a businesslike manner that protects the Society. Some volunteers pointed out that if the current DECUS Board was going to do this then they owed it to the Society to get an agreement from Digital that we would earn tax credits in those years where we had a negative cash flow, i.e. "loss". The point was made that now was the time to negotiate this issue while DECUS had not yet handed Digital the check and was, therefore, in the strongest possible position. The current DECUS Board again refused to go to Digital and open negotiations to protect the Society. V. THE CURRENT DECUS BOARD RESOLUTION At the February 1991 DECUS Board meeting in Palm Springs the following resolution was passed: "DECUS is tied to the success of Digital in meeting the needs of its users. In support of the DECUS/DIGITAL Partnership, the Board encourages efforts by DECUS leaders and members that support DIGITAL in these economically challenging times. We wish to develop a process for DECUS to expeditiously act on and respond to suggestions made by the membership that are of benefit to the partners. Digital has an employee suggestion program called Delta. The Board wants to test the feasibility of an external process connecting to the DELTA program. This process, to be called X-Delta, is intended to coordinate with and complement other efforts by the DECUS organization." This was the Board action that, when combined with the others, caused this missive to be generated. My first reaction to "this was it is the 'Alms for Digital' resolution." However I feel it provides an interesting insight into the thought processes at work in this group. Take this resolution with other actions and you see a mind set of the current DECUS Board believing that the success of DECUS is to be achieved by blindly matching DECUS's goals with Digital's goals rather than with the goals of the user community. This is where this current Board has been expending its energies. Simply put, over the last 18 months the current DECUS Board has expended most of its new project energies on Digital related projects. DECUS overall has a finite amount of resources. The limiting factor is not dollars but volunteer creative energy. The Board should keep that volunteer energy focused on helping the users as much as possible. That first paragraph set the wrong tone and direction for a DECUS Board program. The overriding message must be whatever we do as a Society, its primary goal should be to help users. This resolution has as its primary goal to help Digital. The resolution implies that projects that help Digital will be fast tracked. But at what expense? Does this mean Digital controlled third party trade shows and CIO conferences will be given preference over projects that truly and solely benefit users? What many volunteers are concerned about is that we don't view this "support Digital" approach as a strategy for success. Where the current DECUS Board is not expending energy but should be is on projects whose overriding concern is to enhance DECUS services to the user community in such a way that DECUS's acceptance and influence is enhanced. If the Board wanted to implemented a "Delta" program it should have focused on the significant opportunities to enhance user services and expand the DECUS audience. The success of DECUS as a USER group is tied to meeting the needs of the user community. The best way DECUS can help Digital is to be a success in meeting user needs so that the users seek the DECUS environments for information exchange. Those DECUS environments tend to be focused on and de facto promote Digital style computing. CONCLUSIONS We must at this point judge the current DECUS Board on the basis of their actions and not their words. I don't want this missive to suggest any sinister intent on the Board's part. I truly believe that what they are attempting to do is what they believe is best for DECUS given their current value and beliefs system. What I am suggesting is that their cultural values are at odds with what I believe to be the cultural values of most of the user community. These cultural values have led to this DECUS Board being perceived as a Digital lap dog in some circles. Frankly, I have worked with some of the current Board members before they became Board members. The changes I have seen leave me wondering if living up there in the rarefied atmosphere of meeting Digital executives such as K.O. reduces the oxygen flow to the point that it allows one's judgment to become distorted by the intoxicating effects of constant exposure to Digital senior marketing types. Remember, Digital is a vested interest that is a for profit enterprise. Its employees are measured on the return from expenditures and how they leverage corporate assets. Up to a third of the people sitting at the table at a Board meeting can be Digital employees. If Digital runs over DECUS, it will most likely be by mistake and not by intent. DECUS needs a strong Board to keep the Society independent. They must be able to work with Digital without developing "DEC think" and "DEC cultural values" as a result of constant contact. I believe one cultural value most of us hold is that DECUS's primary and overriding concern should be information exchange that helps the users and that is validated by peer review. It is inappropriate to expend energy on projects whose primary up front stated goal is to help a vested interest. It is inappropriate to degrade the value of information exchange or allow it to be censored in order to cater to the whims of a vested interest. DECUS will only act independently when the DECUS Board views itself as an equal to Digital and independent of Digital. The DECUS Board should be seeking to build platforms that are focused on user services. The DECUS Board should be seeking to build platforms that cause DECUS's influence to be more effective in the industry. The more effective a voice DECUS has, the more our concerns will be addressed. After all this, I believe the issue boils down to a simple question - do you feel it is wrong, as matter of principle, to allow a strong vested interest to control what information you are allowed to obtain through DECUS or control DECUS affairs? If your answer to the question is yes, then you should be deeply concerned about the course the current DECUS Board is firmly committed to. If your answer to the question above is yes than you should seek change in the current DECUS Board. This current DECUS Board has in the past shown itself to be very sensitive, but not receptive to, criticism. I assume the spin doctors and apologists will spring into action. Please note whether they speak to issues or whether they cloud the issues. Some past tactics have included trying to sanctify the process. This tactic can be identified by the attempt to portray the process as being beyond question (and therefore its results as being beyond question) rather than dealing with the issue. They also tend to try to discredit the messenger rather than speaking to the message. Finally, they respond only to those comments that are supportive. All other responses tend to be "we are interested in your input please keep it coming." This implies they are listening when in fact they are creating an illusion of listening. If they are really listening they would undertake a dialog on the issues and not just respond with "noted". The facts listed here are true and genuine. Please watch the responses carefully and see if they speak to the issues or try to remove attention from issues through the use of red herrings. NOTE: All quotes that were used are from the public electronic conferences available to most DECUS volunteers. Jeff Killeen DECUServe Chair Killeen@Eisner.DECUS.ORG