🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <113@intrbas.UUCP> goutal@intrbas.uucp (Kenn Goutal) writes:

>Various mechanisms could be brought to bear in a closed environment
>that cannot be used on the public nets:
>    -	make all newsgroups be moderated
>    -	install filters everywhere that limit who can post
>    -	install kill files everywhere that limit what can be posted
>    -	organizational pressure can be brought to bear on those who
>	post too much fluff
>I mean, most of us would consider these pretty draconian, but then,
>most corporations are pretty draconian almost by definition.

Good point.  The last mechanism (peer pressure) is probably the best
and can work well in an environment where many of the people know each
other.  One's reputation in one's company is more immediately important
than one's reputation on the net.


>>- Again related to being broadcast, there are some parts of
>>  the work life that people feel uncomfortable broadcasting.
>>  People feel very different about admitting ignorance (e.g.
>>  by asking a question) to various groups.  Some people feel
>>  uncomfortable asking questions of anonymous strangers, some
>>  people feel uncomfortable asking them from people they know!
>>  (E.g. I know folk who just can't post to USENET.)
>
>I think this is a *terrific* point!

Agreed.  A large % feel uncomfortable asking questions in public (which 
is why I've always thought this is a poor use of news, especially
for in-house).  On the other hand, people can gain reputation by
posting good info, and (if the use of news is widespread and 
expected) lose reputation by witholding information. 

Unfortunately, netters bring the "flaming" tradition from world news
to in-house news, pounding on even minor mistakes of first-time posters
in public.  This is bound to discourage posting by a large number of
employees.


>Some careful planning of newsgroups and distribution regions
>should be done.  It almost certainly will not work to make all
>in-house newsgroups have a distribution of 'company-wide'.

I disagree.  If we start distributing certain newsgroups just to 
certain people, we might as well (except for the minor issue of
resource usage) go back to using e-mail aliases.  A big advantage
of newsgroups, IMHO, is that the *reader* has the choice of what
to read, and the writer doesn't need to know who explicitly the
audience is, just what the subject category(s) are.   This is
especially important in a broadcast medium where the labor cost
of reading is greater than the cost of writing (small-alias e-mail 
is the reverse).


>Returning to your point about comfort levels with various sorts
>and scopes of communication, there is a software product whose whole
>underlying philosophy is that the software must reflect these needs
>in both the groups and in the individuals.  That is, the communication
>channels implemented in software must reflect the communication channels
>that people already use, and the communication paths that go along
>with various organizational structures.  

Communications paths go along organizational structures only as 
historical artifact.  In most companies, and nearly all the successful 
ones, the communications structure is "matrix": you talk to whoever 
you need to get the job done, without asking permission of or going
through your boss or other authority.  Since news is organized by 
subject, it encourages this ad-hoc style of communications, based on
the need of the moment rather than fossilized tradition.

News will not be popular with those who maintain their jobs by hoarding
information, passing it only to those who do them favors.  This old
style of "distribution lists" and locked doors just gets blown away 
by a good electronic communications system.  Electronic communication
goes so fast and costs so little, that the speed of communications in 
an organization has become primarily a (inverse) function of that
organization's information barriers.  Mimicking the paper trail and all 
its politics with electrons is a dreadfully inefficient way to go.  In
the same way that printing changed post-Renassaince Europe radically 
away from Middle Ages assumptions of life, electronic communications 
will change organizations, and those organizations that adapt the 
quickest will be the winners.  


-- 
Nick Szabo		szabo@sequent.com
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...