Conference 7.286::digital

    Add to the list not only rumors, but accurate-at-one-time but now
    out of date messages.  Sometimes, people take information out
    of a vtx infobase or notes conference (deleting the date information
    to "protect" the file location) and blast off mail from that.
    The original author of the note may be long gone, or at least in
    other positions.
    
    Even if the source is reliable, question the date/accuracy.
    _bill

        I have seen the same sort of damaging information about RA70
        availability. And I have watched it go from DEC mouths to Customer
        ears. yeesh!
        
        q
        

    Occasionally I have edited long forwarding lists, leaving only the
    original source. I have just changed my practice: leave one line for
    each level of forwarding so the trail can be followed.
    
    I am not going to try to verify each note before I forward it. I think
    it will be far more efficient for each person who decides he might want
    to act on the information to do his own checking.

    re: .0
    
    The problem you're talking about is easy enough to quantify;
    it happens in all organizations.  There is no cure for it.
    
    We are somewhat more vulnerable to the "rumor" illness at DEC
    simply because we are more dependent on our *unofficial* lines
    of communications than we are on the official ones.  If I were
    still depending on "official" data that I receive from Corporate,
    I would still be selling 11/780's and MicroVAX I's.  So I must
    rely on a lot of second-hand and umpty-times-forwarded messages
    to even attempt to stay current.  Some of it's wrong.  I try to
    recover the best I can when that happens, but I would be in even
    worse shape if I attempted to do my job with no information at all.
    
    As far as just plain gossiping over the network is concerned, as
    with the "LSD" (which is a classifiable urban myth), that has to
    do more with maturity than with common sense.  To many people, the
    network is still a toy, and is not seriously viewed as a valuable
    tool.  I would encourage managers to educate both new hires and
    existing employees about the value of the Easynet, and about the
    proper use of this tool.  I have not yet found a manager in our
    organization who show any interest in doing this, however.  Or
    even a manager who seems to understand what the Easynet really
    does for anyone, other than basic electronic mail.
    
    Sadder but wiser,
    
    Geoff Unland

    Information is a powerful tool, and can be used wisely, or abused.
    I too agree that there is a need to separate fact from fiction when
    presenting information.
    
    Let me ask this as a follow-on to .0.  If you see something that
    you think is important, but are unsure of it's origin or correctness,
    would it be appropriate to post it through mail or in a conference
    with a proper preamble explaining how the information was gained,
    so that if it might be a rumor, everyone who reads it is forwarned?
    
    I have done this in the past, and it seems to be a relatively accepted
    practice.
    
    Doug

        Re: .5 -- In my opinion, that's a reasonable approach.  In fact,
        in the recent incident, what frightened me most was that a person
        *who should have been a reliable information source* forwarded
        something from someone who was an *unreliable source* without
        properly verifying or qualifying the information.  (The person who
        did this received the information from someone she trusted to be a
        reliable source, which is even more frightening -- the source from
        which she received it *should* have been unimpeachable, given
        their role in the corporation.) 
        
        So, if you know that you can't verify it (because, for instance,
        the trail back to the source is missing), but believe it may be
        important, putting a clear disclaimer at the front cautions the
        reader to factor in your own doubts about the veracity of the
        information. 
        
        Of course, this doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to *try*
        to verify things you're passing on to others as factual, because
        you never know who trusts you implicitly and without qualification.
        
        Tom

>        Since I was unsure of the truth of what was in the newsletter, I
>        called the person in APO who was identified as the source of the
>        memo, and asked him where he got the information, and how he knew
>        it was true.

    I was the person in APO that Tom called.  I hope that the memo did not
    show that I was "the source" of the memo, merely one of the forwarders.
    I received the memo from another group and it looked reasonable to me,
    since it included an OPERATOR at this site and a method for exchanging
    bad tapes.

    I took the memo, cleaned out the things which were site specific and
    forwarded it to one person at my site who had just lost a backup on a
    TK50.  It turned out that the numbers matched ones on the list.  I
    deleted all forwarding from the message and put [forwarding deleted...]
    on it.  The message already had [forwarding deleted...] on it, so I did
    not know the original source.


>        On Monday afternoon, I received (again, through several levels of
>        indirection) a memo from the TK50 tape subsystem maintainability
>        engineer, who stated that there was no "crisis".

    The original memo never stated that there was a "crisis", merely that
    there was a batch of bad TK50 tapes.

>        The essence of his memo was that the information in the memo being
>        widely distributed is FALSE.

    The follow-up message by the maintainability engineer was misleading in
    this respect.  The main thrust of the original memo was that the TK50
    tapes with the given numbers were likely to have a problem and should
    not be used.  The reason for the problem WAS false, they don't wear
    away your tape heads, just gunk them up so that they need cleaning.
    Either way, you don't want to use these tapes.


>        Each of us should accept personal responsibility for controlling
>        rumors.  If you receive a mail message, or read a note in a
>        conference, and you are not certain that it's true, you probably
>        should not forward it to other people.

    I generally agree with this.  I received the "sick child" and "blue
    star" messages Tom mentioned, and did not forward them because I had
    no idea whether they were true, and they had nothing to do with DEC's
    business.  I don't think that this type of "chain letter" or scare
    message is in the same league as the TK50 message, though.

    The TK50 message was business related, believable, though not
    confirmed, and reasonable.  Actually, if I had gotten and forwarded the
    memo earlier, it might have prevented the previously mentioned backup
    loss.

    I found out later that most of the text of the memo (except for the
    head wearing part) came from a field service "Blitz" system.  The
    problem is that most people never see this system, and most MicroVAX
    owners (who use TK50's) don't need to see field service very often.
    Hence the "unofficial" channels take over.

    In general, my position on forwarding is that NOTHING should be
    forwarded to anyone outside of DEC.  Info that needs to go outside
    should be relayed by people whose job it is to inform the outside.
    Rumors or chain letters should not be forwarded.  Non-business related
    info should not be forwarded.  Business related, rational, useful
    messages should be forwarded.  Thought should be given to the source of
    the message and the consequences of it.  Messages forwarded to a large
    distribution list or posted in a newsletter should definitely be traced
    to a source.

    ---Phil

    (The message as I received it (I got another copy), is given below.
     Would you have believed it?  Please don't forward this!!  A copy of
     this was sent to the TK50 group in case they want to trace it back.)





From:	ISTG::OPERATOR     18-OCT-1988 12:29:21.47
To:	WEBB,ZIESEMANN,DURAK,SUPERNOR
Subj:	bad tk50s' BAD, BAD, BAD!

From:	AITG::MCKENZIE     "Paul McKenzie (AITG Cluster Manager), DTN 291-8060" 18-OCT-1988 12:27:16.56
To:	@AITECH,ISTG::OPERATOR,ISTG::HOWE,ISTG::OTOOLE,ISTG::DWILSON
CC:	MCKENZIE
Subj:	Check your TK50s...Paul

From:	LISP::CARRASCO     "Pilar | VAX LISP Documentation | 291-8028" 18-OCT-1988 11:33:40.16
To:	PAUL
CC:	
Subj:	Have you heard about this? Want to forward it to AITC?

From:	AITG::MTWAIN::CHALLENGER "Don't worry...be Happy!  18-Oct-1988 1049" 18-OCT-1988 10:55:18.94
To:	@TOTAL.DIS
CC:	
Subj:	Beware! Bad TK50 tapes.

From:	MUG::WRIGHT       18-OCT-1988 10:46
To:	26290::CHALLENGER,WRIGHT
Subj:	Bad TK50 tapes, pls forward to your group. thks, Linda

From:	DONVAN::RUBINO       "Alice Rubino" 18-OCT-1988 08:24
To:	MUG::WRIGHT
Subj:	Please forward to your groups.  Thanks Alice

From:	DONVAN::ETZEL        "Mike" 17-OCT-1988 16:47
To:	BOOKIE::RUBINO,ETZEL
Subj:	Bad TK50 tapes. Please forward to CUP/ZKO

[Forwarding deleted... Message last sent by Art Hebert]

A batch of TK50 tape cartridges were made that will slowly wear your
TK50 tape heads away.  You should not use any of these tapes for regular disk
backups or similar repeated use!

Below is a list of serial number ranges for the "bad" tapes.  If you have
one of these tapes, you should return it to your original source to swap
for a good tape.  You can exchange a bad tape for a good one by sending
mail to ZEKE::OEPRATORS. If you simply discard any media, use the media
bins, usually located in computer rooms.

The serial number information is on the bottom (back) of the TK50 cartridge,
stamped in black ink in two places. One number is on the cartridge near the
edge, the other is in the middle hub (that spins).

	Serial # on back of cartridge		Serial # on tape hub
	-----------------------------		--------------------

		9n74n			and		nn5n

		9n74n			and		nn0n

		9n80n			and		nn09n OR nn09nn

		9n80n			and		nn10n OR nn10nn


	- where "n" is any digit

I had a bad tape. The number was 92802 on the catridge and 08103 on the hub,
which matches the lowest line above (9n80n and nn10n).

        The whole thing is fascinating.  I've had an interesting chat
        this morning with Rich Reynolds, the TK5x cartridge product
        manager.  He explained to me some of the steps we're taking
        to assure that we distribute a high-quality product, and some
        of the frustrations that we've experienced along the way as
        we've learned the process steps needed to attain our quality
        goals.  (Suffice it to say that, even though we buy the parts
        from a quality vendor, we've had to pressure them to improve
        their internal processes, and we've instituted our own testing
        "down-stream" of their products, after we've received them
        but before they ship to our customers.)
        
        In the copy of the memo that was included in the marketing group's
        newsletter, all indications of the source of the memo, with the
        exception of Phil McKinley's name (thanks for adding your own
        perspective on the situation, Phil!), had been removed. 
        
        So far, I've seen no follow-up from the marketing group stating
        that the original information was inaccurate, even though I've
        forwarded several follow-up messages to the contact person who
        distributes the newsletter.  Perhaps they've purged my name from
        their distribution list?  Nah, that's too paranoid.. 
        
        For those who are interested in the exact text of the most recent
        "Blitz" on the TK5x cartridges, as well as the cleaning procedures
        that need to be followed should you have a TK50 or TK70 drive
        that's contaminated, you might want to read note 1543 in
        TLE::MICROVAX (KP7 will add that conference to your notebook). 
        
        Tom

    This recalls an incident that happenned about 10 years ago (pre-CSSE,
    pre-NOTES, per-EASYNET).
    
    I was having a very hard time reading some IBM-written tapes on a
    DECSYSTEM-20 tape drive.  Everytime I brought it up the FS chain, I was
    told the problem was mine or the customers: unique.  I and the
    customer were absolutely sure it was a design flaw.
    
    We were sure because I took tapes the customer had written on his IBM
    system to VAX's and they were readable, to PDP-11's and they were
    readable, to other IBM systems and they were readable, to
    DECSYSTEM-20's which were equipped with a different controller and they
    were readable.
    
    I just wrote down how these tapes were written and on what Digital
    systems and controllers they were readable in a one page note for the
    LARGE BUFFER without calling the controller "broken" or "flawed" or
    finger pointing at FS or LCG, I made it clear that some IBM tapes
    could be read faultlessly on every Digital tape drive/controller pair I
    could get my hands on except this particular one.
    
    Well, shortly after this appeared the rumor was that NO IBM tapes were
    readable on ANY DECSYSTEM-20.  And I was called on the carpet for not
    making it my job to navigate a seven level deep org chart looking for
    the responsible engineer.  Well, he found me and his boss found me and his
    boss's boss found me.
    
    From that day forward I've always been sensitive to the rumor potential
    of what I write, especially when it comes to the reliability or
    performance of hardware.
                            

    RE .7
    
    That is the memo we got in Switzerland. Everyone here has been
    talking about that too. 
    
    Peter

    I think there needs to be more personal responsibility by most people
    for lots of things besides rumor control.  Just acting non-impulsively
    and intelligently for example!
    
    It seems to me that this note really discusses two kinds of e-mail
    gossip.  One is the "sick child" variety and is fairly benign, at
    least most of the time.  Maybe that stuff should just be thought
    of as "chain letter" sorts of stuff and simply deleted.  Although
    artsy Christmas greetings are sort of interesting, I delete those
    too -- most reset my terminal to reverse video and nobody has been
    able to ;show me how to return to normal view without rebooting
    -- which kind of spoils the fun!  And jokes -- some I've had forwarded
    to me were inquestionable taste at best. (For a company and batch
    of people supposedly concerned with the Valueing of Difference.)
    
    Then there's the business rumor.  Seems to me that if there is a
    REAL problem, the appropriate manager should send out a CAREFULLY
    worded memo (if that is appropriate) which contains proper contact
    person information within the body of the memo.  (Stuff that doesn't
    go away with a /noheader command.)  It should be marked Company
    Confidential, and that instruction should be honored.  It should
    NOT be wholesale forwarded to any list, but send only to individuals
    who have some reason to be alerted.  (Actually, maybe there should
    be a way to disable the use of distribution lists in the send to:
    line!)  If I forward a memo from somebody which is in memo format,
    it wouldn't occur to me to edit it -- especially to eliminate the
    source.  I think one source of the problem here is that we are all
    a bit informal in some of these commmunications, assuming they won't
    go further.  If it's an alert, good or bad news, or anything "formal",
    a formal context would help clarify that to all subsequent readers.
    
    Sherry
    

        Re: .11
        
        If you want a formal context ...
        
>    It should be marked Company
>    Confidential, and that instruction should be honored.  
        
        If the information is Digital proprietary information, it
        shouldn't be marked `Company Confidential'.  It should either
        be marked `Digital Internal Use Only', `Digital Confidential',
        or `Digital Restricted Distribution' (and in the last case it
        shouldn't be distributed electronically).
        
        There is a DEC standard on labeling proprietary information,
        and using the label `Company Confidential' for proprietary
        information is not appropriate (and hasn't been appropriate
        since at least 1984), but the use of `Company Confidential'
        continues to be widespread.
        
        					B.J.

    Re: .11 and .12
    
    Ya, I got caught on that too once...in the Marketing conference.
    
    It goes along with making sure that you use the *PROPER* product
    names (trademarks) when referring to DIGITAL products in
    correspondence (like ALL-IN-1 instead of All-In-1, or Rdb/VMS 
    instead of RDB).  It bothers me when I see one of these trademarks
    butchered in a letter to a customer, or even an internal memo.  
    
    Doug (who has errored in this area more than his share of times...)

    
    
    I also received mail on the "sick child" and "blue star tattoos".
    Didn't know they were bogus, though. What's the story on these? 
    
                                           Warren Young
    

    Aside from some of the tangents, much of this seems to point to
    the whole field of electronic ethics, or at least, courtesy.
    Understanding when to forward something, and to whom; when may forwarding
    it violate trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, or just good
    taste?  Perhaps in time, a set of ethical rules will develop such
    that people will understand better the ramifications of their
    electronic actions.  For example, how often have you wished you
    could recall that last mail message you sent out in anger?  Have
    you ever seen someone being bludgeoned in a notes file for expressing
    an unpopular opinion?  (Even if it was dumb?)
    
    The technology out-paces our ability to deal with the ethics and
    etiquette of its application.  We're outrunning our headlights.
    
    I guess what I'm trying to say is this: we can only deal with the
    issue by gently reminding each other how to better handle information.
    The hard part is understanding when it's really important to NOT
    do something (like forward a rumor, export information to a buddy
    on the Internet, tell some pin-head what you think of their heritage,
    or even just try to pass on informal technical information that
    might help).

    tim
        

         For those interested, Digital's policy regarding proprietary
    information and the different classifications can be found in the
    Corporate Security Standards Manual.  Your local Security depart-
    ment should have a copy of the manual.

         Happy reading!