Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!intrbas!goutal From: goutal@intrbas.uucp (Kenn Goutal) Newsgroups: comp.groupware Subject: Re: Using news for internal communications Summary: maybe mechanics of news software is a problem Keywords: news; Participate; organizational structures Message-ID: <113@intrbas.UUCP> Date: 18 Dec 90 23:01:01 GMT References: <20665@crg5.UUCP> <276561BC.419@intercon.com> <3602@jaytee.East.Sun.COM> Sender: news@intrbasintrbas.UUCP Organization: Interbase Software Corporation Lines: 108 Nntp-Posting-Host: krebs You make some interesting points, and I concur with some of them. However, there are some points that seem over-generalized. >- You can't "make" people read news in the same way you > can do with mail ... too much fluff in most newsgroups, > vs. most organizations using mail having reduced fluff > of necessity. I think nearly everyone would agree that there's too much fluff in the public newsgroups, but I don't see any reason why that would necessarily be true in newsgroups instituted within a particular organization. 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. >- Being a broadcast medium, news is to some degree less > secure. Information that would comfortably go to one or > more workgroups by email would seem more prone to going > astray over news ... e.g. orgchrarts to head hunters, > plans of one group to another (yeech, politics!), and > a variety of suchlike restricted data. I don't know as it's the mere fact of being a broadcast medium as the implementation of that broadcast medium. Why is mail more secure? Again, measures can be taken: e.g. cut off the corporate net from Worldnet. Unless the corporate net is isolated, it's certainly possible that an employee will forward not only mail but news articles -- via mail. It's easy enough to ensure that in-house news doesn't escape to the outside world -- just manage the gateway node(s) -- control over transmission resides with the transmitting node. It's not too hard to imagine that some bozo might post an in-house org chart (say) to (say) comp.sources.x, but that can happen whether or not 'news' is used for internal communications or not. On the other hand, it's not too hard to imagine some sort of front-end software that implements the corporate work environment and just uses 'news' as a distribution medium. As such, it wouldn't be too hard to build into that software the controls that would make it impossible to post work-related information to the outside world. >- 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! Using 'news' as an integral part of the workplace and workday will work only to the extent that it reflects what that organization and its members are already willing to do. If people are already expected to admit ignorance, and solicit knowledge from co-workers, then that expectation can be mapped onto a news-based workplace. Of course, if the expectation is already unrealistic, it won't work any better (or worse) once this mapping has been done. 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 confess I haven't a clue how the news software implements the concept of 'distribution', but apparently it's possible for each machine to consider itself as part of one or more regions, or not. E.g. there is 'worldwide', 'usa', and 'ne' (for New England). Presumably the same mechanism could be used to limit distribution of various newsgroups to just those machines that belong to the affected groups. 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. So, some channels should be one-to-one, some one-to-many, some many-to-many; in a different dimension, some should be open to all, some should be by invitation only; provision for anonymity should exist. This product is called "Participate", and I heartily recommend it. The main drawback to it at the present time is that it is not 'distributed' -- the message base and the user interface must all reside on a single machine. That restriction aside, it's quite possible to use Participate to reflect all manner of traditional and nontraditional organizations and their communication paths -- interoffice mail, restricted distribution lists, democracies, newsgroups, newsletters, hierarchies, suggestion boxes. Communication can be completely freewheeling or rigidly controlled, or anything in between. N.B. Neither I nor my employer am a representative of this product, nor have any stake in it. I just happen to know a good deal about it and like it. -- Kenn Goutal Technical Support Interbase Software Corporation 209 Burlington Road Bedford MA 01730 617.275.3222 ...!uunet!intrbas!kenn