🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul9.155240.4515@rtpnc.epa.gov>, rbn@ralph.rtpnc.epa.gov (Bob
Boyd) writes:
>You made the claim that somehow the vote that because people voted for
>option A that the interpretation that they also want to limit .decus
>subtree entries under VMSnet.  

A lot of people took issue with this, and I'll try to cover most of it here.

>Personally I didn't think any such thing when I put option A first.

Admittedly, there was nothing explicitly stated. I could have added it, but that
would really have expanded the vote to cover 2 issues, and I was only really
worried about one of them, the name.

The thing is, our "mission statement" says topics of interest to the VMS
community. This does not limit it to VMS-only topics. So our current scope is
pretty ambiguous. Theoretically, any topic any of us (as VMS users) is
interested in could fall under that statement, so it is more a statement of
emphasis than of scope. Option B, however, did explicitly state that the scope
would be widened to include DECUS topics. By A winning, we have not changed our
scope, so we are still in the same ambiguous situation. Maybe I should have tied
the scope to the vote, but that isn't what the vote was about, so I didn't think
of it. 

So basically, nothing has changed, meaning nothing has been decided, so this is
still a grey area. I will continue to handle groups on a case-by-case basis.
There is a decus subtree, but I don't want to populate it as a matter of policy.
Each group that would belong there will be created in our normal fashion, by
consensus. Some people would like us to adopt a policy of bringing in groups
discussing DECUS topics, but because of the opinions of some non-VMSnet DECUS
people, I'm not going to do that.

My standard response to the inevitable complaints will go something like:

a) It (the group) was created as a result of user demand.
b) No more appropriate forum seemed to us to exist.
c) Such a group would be more appropriate to a decus.* hierarchy, but such was
not available.
d) Perhaps, a usenet group would be better, but nobody has created one, and
VMSnet users wanted it within VMSnet.
e) We will probably remove the group if a more appropriate forum becomes
availble.

I may store that somewhere and just post it as a matter of course to
comp.org.decus whenever we create a vmsnet.decus.* group. :-)

>I would like to suggest that if this is a big issue(whether current
>participants care /not if we add .decus.* stuff) then another round
>of discussion is worthwhile.

It is an ambiguous and undecided issue, and a discussion on it certainly might
be appropriate. In the abscence of discussion and decision on this issue, we'll
just argue about it on a case by case basis. I'd like such arguments to be
cross-posted to comp.org.decus so we are not accused of ignoring the concerns of
other DECUS people. Of course, listening to their concerns doesn't mean we have
to abide by their wishes, but all DECUS netters should have a voice on the
creation of non-VMS-related DECUS groups within VMSnet, not just VMSnetters.

>Personally I'm all in favor of adding groups under vmsnet.decus -- 
>the net works by the principle of attraction not promotion -- when
>something is there that an audience is looking for and word gets around
>they get involved.  More stuff that is "DECUS related" that people want
>to have available will get them more involved with DECUS.

This is the sort of thing that I won't adopt as policy, though it certainly
could happen on a case by case basis, because it would be a contentious and
divisive policy.

>Also,  I find it amusing that you claim that you're not part of DECUS 
>leadership.... 

I'm not.

>you are not because you were appointed -- you ARE because
>you are a member who is acting like a leader -- [other embarrasing compliments
>>deleted. *blush*]

DECUS has a specific definition of who is "leadership" and who is not. I am not.
Leadership members have access to DCS, they are part of comittees and go to
woods meetings and lots of other stuff that I don't have time for. I'm sure
there are many volunteers that provide service within DECUS that are not
leadership. The 2 don't specifically go together. 

Tom and Jamie are leadership because they are working group chairs. Tom could
declare VMSnet project coordinators to be vice-chairs, which would make us
leadership, but I for one asked him not to. I don't want to access DCS for the
same reason I don't want to access DECUServe: dialing into a central system is a
royal pain in the rear.

I make the distinction because if I were leadership, I would have access to DCS,
and would know about debates among the leadership, the directions things were
going, etc. I emphasize that I'm not leadership so that nobody assumes I am
privy to such things. Many people here are, and they've been helpful to us all
by imparting that information, but you all saw it the same time I did.
--
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