[comp.os.vms] foo

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