🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Jul1.210621.13137@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes (in response to my
posting about groupware & authority):

   From the perspective of groupware, this almost requires an "any human
   can veto any machine action, subject to human review and confirmation
   of the machine's choice" to make the system seem acceptable to the user;
   there should _always_ be an effective route of appeal, one that protects
   the user until the appeal has been carried through.

   The tough part, as I noted in my previous posting, is keeping those appeals
   from stopping all progress.

Indeed.  I have discussed this possibility with my test subjects in some
depth, in an attempt to see what might make these systems more acceptable.
Most seemed to find a system where they could reject things as more
acceptable (no great surprise).  However, the following exchange illustrates
why this may not be acceptable:

	[Subject 3 and I have been discussing what would make a group
	calendar acceptable.  I have mentioned the idea of being able to
	accept/reject a calendar entry.]

	Subject 3:  Well, I wouldn't be comfortable with that either.

	Me: Why not?

	Subject 3:  Well, it might be that the meeting was really scheduled
	by [Boss] and was just input into the system by [Peer].  If I
	rejected the entry it might look like I was refusing to meet with
	[Boss]. 

Kent brought up the "Garbage In, Gospel Out" principle.  I agree and add
this as an example of "Gospel In, Garbage Out."  It seems that the problem
here is the reduced bandwidth of the scheduling system.  Perhaps adding more
information in the form of annotations would help?

--
--Alan Wexelblat
Bull Worldwide Information Systems	internet: wex@pws.bull.com
phone: (508) 294-7485 (new #)		Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex
"The first myth of management is that it exists.  The second myth
of management is that sucess equals skill."