Re: Clarification of BPCS-L guidelines

Kevin,

In a message dated 2/4/00 11:33:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Kevin_Catlin@GM.cytec.com writes:

>      I would like to get clarification on the proper use of BPCS-L.  
>       
>       First, messages like the one below (sorry to single you out, Peter, 
>       there are many who have done this) that are directed at a specific 
>       person and regarding a specific problem that one is experiencing 
which 
>       does not have broad relevance to other members of BPCS-L should be 
>       e-mailed directly to the person intended, correct?  I would like to 
>       ask participants to please do this to reduce the "noise level" of 
>       BPCS-L.

Well, this is a tough one.  Sometimes (like I have done with this one) you 
just put the poster's name at the top to be polite and indicate that you are 
responding to _their_ submission.  In the case of Peter's post, he was 
responding to a request for more information on a problem that he had posted 
-- totally correct use of the list with a "heads up" for Genyphyr.  Unless 
the response is totally off-topic, the problem is totally unique to the user, 
a repeat of information already given, or another one of those #)$$*& "Me 
Too!" responses to an off-line offer of information, it is germane to the 
discussion here.  Only a minute portion of the list's membership actually 
posts or responds to questions, there is a silent majority of "lurkers" out 
there that may be interested in the additional information.  While you may 
only see the names of thirty or less people posting throughout a given month, 
there are nearly a thousand members of BPCS-L -- most of which work for 
discrete companies rather than mass-memberships from corporate giants.  I 
mentioned something similar a few months back when a Press Release generated 
complaints despite the fact that it fell within list guidelines.  _I_ was 
interested in knowing what had happened to my former manager when I consulted 
with SSA, even if nobody else was.

If _ONE_ person can possibly be interested in a post, even if they don't 
speak up for themselves and the rest of us don't care, we must allow it if 
that post falls within list guidelines.  Use a little common sense and 
"'netiquette" though.  Don't quote the whole message if it's not relevant to 
your response, especially the "plus box" at the end of each message that 
nobody appears capable of reading anyhow that tells you how to remove 
yourself from the list.  The "noise level" _HAS_ been a bit excessive here of 
late -- I'll try to monitor it more closely and offer suggestions to 
offenders.  "Noise" costs our friends overseas money in many cases, and we 
should all try to be cognizant of that fact.

>       Second, I have noticed that Genyphyr Novak of SSA has been an active 
>       participant of BPCS-L lately.  While it has been beneficial to have a 
>       direct channel via BPCS-L to someone of her experience level at SSA 
(I 
>       too have partaken of her bounty of knowledge in this manner) I would 
>       hate to see BPCS-L become some kind of "alternate HelpLine" with 
>       people posting messages to Genyphyr/SSA looking for "official" 
>       responses here.  I don't expect that Genyphyr or SSA wants it to turn 
>       into that, either.  I think this also fits into the first point above 
>       as it is a direct message to a single recipient (Genyphyr/SSA) and 
>       should be sent via established channels (direct e-mail to her or 
>       HelpLine).  The response, of course, would also be outside BPCS-L.

I seriously doubt that Genyphyr would or even _could_ post an "official" 
response here.  She's just trying to help, and mentions OGS as often as do 
the rest of us ;-)!  We've had SSA _membership_ in BPCS-L for years, but 
_participation_ is a new thing.  This list clearly states that it is not 
associated with either SSA nor IBM, and will remain so.  I'm just glad that 
we're _finally_ getting the same vendor participation that other lists hosted 
from midrange.com have received for _YEARS_ from the likes of IBM, JBA, JD 
Edwards, etc.

>       As with anything, there may be exceptions to these guidelines 
>       especially if there are benefits for many BPCS-L users (personally, 
>       I'd like to post a message to Genyphyr asking about SSA's plans for a 
>       V6.1 cume and see what I get back).  I welcome posts from Genyphyr or 
>       anyone at SSA that fit this category, just as I would welcome them 
>       from BPCS users.  I guess the thing to remember is that our time is 
>       precious and our e-mail abundant, so please keep it relevant to all.

Amen.  Excellent post, BTW!

Regards,

Dean Asmussen
BPCS-L List Administrator
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-mail:  DAsmussen@aol.com
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---