NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57946

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57946 news.admin.policy:1148
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.policy
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:52:02 GMT
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay T Stein -- your name may vary) writes:
>What: <[e-mail]>
>Who:  [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
>
>>>    = [e-mail] (Gordon Storga)
>>>>   = [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach)
>>>>>  = (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[ Kevin Hammond's article asking about adoption, posted from Kodak ]
>
>>>>> Doesn't Kodak have a very strigent policy about company computer
>>>>> resources being used for non-company purposes?
>>>>
>>>>For Pete's sake.  Kodak takes a very dim view of .signatures, posted every
>>>>day attached to political opinion articles, in which the author claims to
>>>>speak for Kodak and all it's subsidiaries.
>>>>
>>>>THAT is what got Dan Bredy in trouble.
>>>
>>>Not according to the original response from Kodak.  It was using company
>>>resources for non-company business.
>>
>>Sounds like a fairly vanilla corporate response. What the REAL reasons are,
>>is anyone's guess...
>
>Precisely.  I have no doubt that that "official" excuse is transparent at
>best, but if they are going to cite official policy as a reason, then they
>can reasonably be expected to be consistent about it.
>
>>My problem is not with Kodak, who after all has the legal and (IMO) ethical
>>right to determine the use of its resources, CITING ANY JUSTIFICATION THEY
>>WISH, OR NONE AT ALL,
>
>That's true, but if they're going to issue a vanilla corporate response
>they should expect to take heat for it when they don't enforce it fairly.
>I don't object to the inconsistency being pointed out.

Being pointed out to whom, though? To someone high enough in Kodak to shape
corporate-wide policy? I doubt that any such person saw Keith's post. Far
more likely is that some spineless middle manager would see Keith's post, and
cut off Kevin Hammond's net.access "just to be safe" from getting in trouble
with the Head Office. That would be a typical bureaucrat response -- retract
into the protective shell of isolation.

Is that what Keith really wants? For Kevin Hammond to lose his net.access
like Dan Bredy did? Does he think misery deserves company?

>>but with interlopers like Mr. "Justified and Ancient"
>>who seems bent on insuring that if Dan Bredy doesn't have his net.access,
>>that by golly everyone else who works at Kodak should be punished by losing
>>their net.access too (as if their collective misery was going to help Dan a
>>bit)!
>
>Interesting how people have different interpretations of things, Kevin!
>Before I read your response, I honestly read Keith Cochran's article as
>a request to *restore* Dan Bredy's access, not restrict everybody else's.
>But then, I try to be optimistic, so I will guess that Keith's intent was
>clsoer to my guess than yours.  'course, I'm sure he'll tell me if I'm
>wrong. :)

I think Keith posted before considering the likely results of his actions.

Or, maybe he's just naive about how Big Corporation Politics works...

                                - Kevin