Newsgroups: comp.org.decus
Subject: Re: EXECUTION of DECUS Standards
From: tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:10:45 CST
Reply-To: tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot)
 <1992Dec6.023331.992@dragon.com> <1992Dec9.131202.1@mdcbbs.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA
Nntp-Posting-User: tp


In article <1992Dec9.131202.1@mdcbbs.com>, ivler@mdcbbs.com (J.M. Ivler   
ivler@mdcbbs.com) writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.023331.992@dragon.com>, 
>cts@dragon.com (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) writes:
>> The MC is composed of people elected from the upper crust of DECUS
>> leadership, by the upper crust of DECUS leadership.  Only people voting
>> are the members of various high level committees.  For example, the
>> Sig council, made up, if memory serves, of the chair of each sig, 
>> elects one of its own to the MC.  Hardly what I'd call an elected
>> position.
>
>I get involved with a SIG, I elect a leader to represent my interests to those
>>above him/her. This leader then goes to a meeting with other leaders of that 
>type and elects someone to represent thier interests. This continues until you
>>get to the MC. Not only does this happen in the SIG structure, but also in all
>>the other units.

It should perhaps be made clear to the membership that they only get to vote on
the membership of the BOD. Other representative units of DECUS are elected
solely by the leadership. It should be made clear up front that members who are
not leaders have no voice in how things are done other than by their BOD votes.
This might avoid some of the confusion. 

>If you don't like what you see you always have two choices. 1) sit around and 
>complain that it is not the way you like it or 2) do something about it. In the
>>first case, you can flame away on the net or on DCS and DECUServe. It won't
>add 
>anything but noise, and in the long run only generates a bit of distaste amoung
>>a number of people for DECUS altogether. In the second case you are being 
>pro-active and taking responsibility for change. Sure, there may be blocks 
>thrown in your path, but the fact that you are activly trying to lead and make
>>change makes all your words carry more weight.

I don't want to be unkind, but you seem to be saying that only the opinions of
the leadership matter. Opinions from the membership only serve to annoy the
leadership. That is consistent with the current organizational structure of
DECUS. Is my opinion worth less because I don't have the resources to
participate to a greater degree in DECUS? I dunno. I guess you could argue
either way on that.
 
>> And only that body, who are generally doing their thing behind closed 
>> doors or in closed DCS notes conferences...as I've said on DECUserve,
>> a good "sunshine" canon would go a ways toward cleaning this up.
>
>NOTES is a good medium. If there is a closed/private conference for a group, 
>please shout about it. THERE SHOULD BE NO CLOSED CONFERENCES (I know there are,
>>but it is not in the spirit of DECUS). On the other hand, e-mail should still
>>be private.

DCS is a closed system. It is only available to the leadership. (I could also
argue that DECUServe is a closed system, but I know I'm a minority in that
opinion.) However, DCS membership isn't open even to people willing to pay, only
to the leadership.

>DECUS is using a good model for a representitive democracy. The model that has
>>worked for 200+ years is the United States. In DECUS You elect representitives
>>in two ways, An executive body elected by the general population, and a 
>legislative body representitive of the product producers. The executive body 
>establishes direction and focus and approves or disapproves of legislative 
>decisions as they relate to that direction. The legislative body makes 
>decisions based on operation of the units and products. Now, we have in DECUS 
>established two sets, or classes of member. Those that are general members (use
>>products, attend symposia) and those that are active participants in providing
>>those products and services.

Otherwise known as "membership" and "leadership". The problem with your analogy
is that in the US the citizens elect representatives to the legislature. In
DECUS, only the leadership does. This would be like letting only city
councilmembers vote for state representatives, and only letting state
representatives vote for US representatives. DECUS has many more layers of
representation between the electorate and the legislator. The more layers, the
more difficult it is to maintain contact. And there is no representation in the
DECUS legislator of members who are not in the leadership.

>Bringing every case or issue to the general membership for review and 
>discussion may sound like a good idea, but if you thought DECUS time was slow 
>before, you ain't seen nothing until you implement the "buy-in" model. 

True enough, but to continue your analogy, at least when a decision is made by
the US gov't, there are some people making the decision that I had a change to
vote for. (President, my representative, my 2 senators.)

>The 
>current representitive model allows the general members to voice their concerns
>>to the board, and then, if they don't like the way the board handled a 
>decision, they can replace them. 

Reactive representation is even slower than full democracy. I don't get a chance
to vote on an issue by voting out a member of the BOD very often.  Besides, I've
yet to see anyone disclose the voting records of the BOD. I asked once, and as
expected, no answer.

>It also allows those that are more active in 
>the process, the leadership, to have representation and a voice in the 
>day-to-day operation of the organization. If you want to effect change there, 
>you can by working on becoming one of those representitives or by making your 
>views known to your representitives, and replacing them (or trying to) when 
>they don't act on your wishes.

Again, I think much of the confusion is that many people are not aware of, or
are surprized by the fact that only the leadership is allowed to participate in
this process.

>I am not "elite leadership". I am not on the MC mailing list, nor the budget, 
>nor the board, nor the SIG councel. I am a DECUServe moderator, a member of L&T
>>and CHI SIGs and an appointed person on a special project for the MC. 

You are leadership. You at least get to vote for more than just the members of
the BOD.

>I have no 
>turf to defend, as I have notified the groups that I am involved with in 
>DECUS, that I am lowering my participation in DECUS. My statements are intended
>>to show that there are ways to do things and ways to not do things... this is
>>not the way to accomplish anything. If you want to make changes in DECUS, then
>>get involved and represent those people that want change. Standing around and
>>hurling flame-bait is unproductive and damaging to the chapter.

It is a pity that the leadership is not interested in the opinions of the
membership. Perhaps the change we ought to be trying to make is in who gets to
vote for the people that do make the decisions. You say if we want our opinion
to count, we have to become leadership. DECUS isn't interested in the opinions
of the consumers of it products (to use a different terminology you employed),
only the producers. What's wrong with this picture?

>I remember the flap, 
>and the organization. I have seen the "new" board and listened to the MC. I can
>>state that there have been some changes. 

"Trust me, I have access to information you do not." Sorry, that's a cheap shot.
The point is, that you do, in fact, have access to information that we do not.
Those of us in the "membership" have had no chance to see any changes. Many of
us still have bad feelings about DECUS from the reorg flap, and the only really
visible thing that's happened since then is that the newsletters are gone. 

Maybe I'm a minority, but the newsletters were my one regular contact with the
society. And what I read the most were the standards reports. I will miss both.
Now I hardly feel like I have a connection to DECUS. (Now would be a bad time to
ask me to pay money, btw, to comment on another issue being discussed, unless I
got some new product in return.) And I'm more connected to DECUS than
somepeople, as I am a volunteer (I manage VMSnet).

>Most, in my view, have been positive. 
>It is definatly not "business as usual.", but I'm not sure that the changes 
>that have to take place, in my opinion, are happening fast enough to let DECUS
>>survive the changes that are happening in the industry.

But if change is to be both rapid and useful, it needs to be responsive to the
needs of the membership. You have lots of people rowing the boat, but you should
also take some input on direction from the passengers. Oarsman face the rear of
the boat, and  can only see where they've been, not where they're going. You
should ask the passengers where they want to go, or they'll just find a boat
going in a direction they prefer.

>> As you note, DECUS is a volunteer society.  One factor both the board and
>> the MC seem to have difficulty with is that a volunteer society must be 
>> from the bottom up, not a top down management domain.
>
>If you don't like what your representitives do you have two choices. Either you
>>leave or get involved and institute the changes you want yourself. DECUS is a
>>representitive democracy, not a true one-man one-vote on every issue.

I'm a volunteer, and my only representatives are the BOD. Funding for standards
happens not to have been a campaign issue. Someone (I think Loren Buhle)
solicited opinions on the net, and I did respond to that. But I certainly don't
have time to take on more volunteer work just so I can vote on a representative
who can vote on a representative who can vote on a representative who can vote
on this issue. (Did I get the right number of layers?)

>Public flaming, without all the facts, is not deserved. If you want all the 
>facts, in general, all you have to do is ASK for them. If there is no response
>>in a spefied amount of time, they deserve to be flamed for that. If they
>refuse 
>the facts, they deserve to be flamed for that. If the facts don't show a good 
>decision, in your opinion, has been made, then go complain to your 
>representitive. 

It's hard to ask for facts about an issue that you don't hear about until after
the issue is decided. And I'm sure the BOD will be real pleased to answer even
10 such queries on every issue that comes up, even if we can find out about the
issues. (Remember, the BOD are my only elected representatives.)

>Flaming a decision made by the representitives as a group is 
>unfair. Flame the person who you wanted to represent your interests. 

Are you one of those people who never complains about any decision congress
makes? Flaming a group decision is certainly fair, though generally
unproductive. 

>If you 
>want to change the system, then do it from within. get some group, that agrees
>>with you, to make you their representitive.

So if Charles and I vote to make Loren our representative, will he get to vote
on the MC? I didn't think so.

>Standards is under SIG Councel. The SIG Councel is made up of representitives 
>of each SIG. These SIGs have 0-n members of the SIG involved in standards. 
>These SIG chairs, elected by the SIGs sit on the councel and decided to vote 
>for the closure of the standards funding. The Chair and vice-chair of SIG 
>Councel then went to teh BWG (Budget Working Group) and made recomendations 
>based on the input they recieved from those they represent. The BWG then goes 
>to the MC and suggests a course of action based on that input. At what point do
>>you want all these discussions to take place? They should have happened
>between 
>the SIG Chairs and the standards reps at the SIG level. If the standards reps 
>in the SIGs were unable to effectivly propose whey they should have budget, and
>>the chairs voted to tell the BWG that the monies for standards should be cut,
>>who is at fault? Is there fault? 

Perhaps the fault is that nobody asked the membership, informally or otherwise,
whether they felt that standards activity was useful to them. And it didn't
sound as though anyone asked Loren Buhle anything, and he is a standards rep.
And him voting for a new representative won't change the fact that this decision
has been made, and won't do anything to convince the decision makers to seek
more input on decisions in the future.

>Should every decision be made open to public 
>debate? If so, when does it end and when is a decision made? Do you want a vote
>>on every decision directly? If so, find someplace elese, becuase in a 
>representitive democracy, you just don't get that.

In a representative democracy, every decision is open to public debate. At some
point the legislators decide the issue. But in general, the debate comes first.
Representative democracy limits decision making to a few, not discussion. DECUS
limits both. 

>Now, some SIG chair, if he wanted, could have opened up other avenues of input
>>before making their decision. And, if enough did, and the input showed that 
>they were heading the wrong way, then I'm sure they would have taken that input
>>into consideration when they made their decisions to represent the individuals
>>that put them where they are.

My, wouldn't that be gracious of our mythical sig chair? But the implication is
that most of them wouldn't bother, right? That's the impression I'm getting from
all this, anyway.

>> At least the American citizen gets a chance to throw the bums out.
>> For the members of the MC, the membership doesn't even get to do this.
>
>Wrong... If I don't like the way my representitive votes at the SIG level, I 
>can throw him out and replace him with someone who represents my interests. 

But then, we've already established that you belong to the voting class,
leadership. I certainly can't throw out any bums on the SIG council, or anyone
above or below that. Only the BOD. And, as I mentioned before, nobody's going to
tell me how each of them vote on these things. At least I can find that out
about the people I vote for for the US legislature.

>If 
>enough people do this, then the chair and vice chair of the SIG Councel will be
>>replaced (THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST). Remember Mr. Welborne? He used to be
>>the MC Chair. He isn't any more. He stopped representing the interests of the
>>MC, so he was replaced by Sandy. When Sandy fails to represent the interests
>of 
>the MC he will be replaced. Representitive democracy at work.

Perhaps Sandy should represent the interest of the society rather than the MC. I
think that's the basic point here.

>> If the Board and MC continue to appear (and note, in this case, the key word
>> is appear;  frankly, your public relations, in my opinion, sucks, and you've
>> done less than nothing to improve them here) to be operating in an arbitrary
>> and high handed fashion, you'll eventually end up carving an ever shrinking
>> pie until there's nothing left.
>
>As one who has seen this process from the outside, and as an observer. I can 
>state that many of the questions being asked and answered are dealing with the
>>changing face of DECUS. The Society is asking, at all levels, what it wants to
>>be when it grows-up. 

Too bad the society isn't asking "all levels", but instead is only asking the
leadership.

>The facts are staring DECUS right in the face. There is a 
>problem with the society, and it must be fixed. Business  can not continue to 
>go on as if nothing has changed. Times have changed. 

And ironically, most analysts would say that one of the big changes is that
standards are becoming enormously more important. Heck, even DEC (both Olsen and
Palmer) agree with this. Ironic that DECUS has decided to buck this trend. The
users won't though. This is a clear case, IMHO, of DECUS parting company from
the membership in terms of its priorities.

>It is hard to give up a 
>great deal of the old, and set your focus and aim for the new and unexpected, 
>but that is what DECUS will have to do to survive, much less to prosper. In 
>doing this many people will get stepped on as their "jobs" go away. Many are 
>resistant to that. Change comes, you either move with it, or it moves along 
>without you.

I highly doubt that the only people in the society that think involvement in
standards are worthwhile are the standards reps, as you seem to be implying. I,
for one, consider it vital. I used to get more info on the progress of some
standards of interest to me from the DECUS newsletters than I get from the
approx. 10 different trade magazines I subscribe to.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA