A. DRAFT: CMS Guidelines on Blogs

Guidelines are needed for blogs due to sensitivity of the subject and requests coming from outside agencies for people in CMS to blog about their work.

Wide internal discussion, even if contentious, is useful and healthy in a Collaboration of our size. However, people should act with the normal common sense, decent manners and sensitivity to possible contentious matters when in the public arena.

The guidelines set in other experiments, especially CDF, are used to set up our own ones. Blogs can be classified into three categories: scientific, internal and private.

1. Scientific

This includes discussion and interpretation of CMS physics results. Nothing should be discussed or shown that has not yet been approved. Furthermore, bloggers should kindly refrain from posting discussions on just-approved CMS results until the collaboration has officially presented them first. This can be after the first public talk is presented or after the results have been submitted for publication.

Discussion of approved results is, of course, allowed. However, personal interpretation of these, beyond what is agreed upon by the collaboration, should not be discussed in the public domain.

At all times blogs should point to the official and public sources of CMS information.

2. Internal

This includes information about what occurs in internal CMS meetings, in interactions and discussions with collaborators, and in general the details of all our operations (including all of our procedures, formal and ad hoc, as well as details of the internal status of any particular issue). Our meetings and “business” discussions are to be considered as PRIVATE. No information from these should show up in blogs.

All our collaborators, including managers, convenors, reviewers, students etc. NEED to know that they can safely operate in an environment where they are not scrutinized by, or exposed to, the outside at any time.


3. Private

By common sense and decency, revealing personal information about one’s colleagues ought not be done. Again, the baseline is to assume that they don’t want you talking about them in public – even if what is said is “good” or “positive”.

By the same common sense and decency, blogs should never be used to express dissatisfaction with any member of CMS or of any decision by any of its bodies (be it physics group, subdetector editorial board, member of any particular board or committee…).  It should be assumed that while we may/can engage in lively discussions prior to any decision of CMS, the full collaboration will stand behind the decision once the latter is made.

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Helvetica; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:536902279 -2147483648 8 0 511 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

A. DRAFT: CMS Guidelines on Blogs

Guidelines are needed for blogs due to sensitivity of the subject and requests coming from outside agencies for people in CMS to blog about their work.

Wide internal discussion, even if contentious, is useful and healthy in a Collaboration of our size. However, people should act with the normal common sense, decent manners and sensitivity to possible contentious matters when in the public arena.

The guidelines set in other experiments, especially CDF, are used to set up our own ones. Blogs can be classified into three categories: scientific, internal and private.

1. Scientific

This includes discussion and interpretation of CMS physics results. Nothing should be discussed or shown that has not yet been approved. Furthermore, bloggers should kindly refrain from posting discussions on just-approved CMS results until the collaboration has officially presented them first. This can be after the first public talk is presented or after the results have been submitted for publication.

Discussion of approved results is, of course, allowed. However, personal interpretation of these, beyond what is agreed upon by the collaboration, should not be discussed in the public domain.

At all times blogs should point to the official and public sources of CMS information.

2. Internal

This includes information about what occurs in internal CMS meetings, in interactions and discussions with collaborators, and in general the details of all our operations (including all of our procedures, formal and ad hoc, as well as details of the internal status of any particular issue). Our meetings and “business” discussions are to be considered as PRIVATE. No information from these should show up in blogs.

All our collaborators, including managers, convenors, reviewers, students etc. NEED to know that they can safely operate in an environment where they are not scrutinized by, or exposed to, the outside at any time.

3. Private

By common sense and decency, revealing personal information about one’s colleagues ought not be done. Again, the baseline is to assume that they don’t want you talking about them in public – even if what is said is “good” or “positive”.

By the same common sense and decency, blogs should never be used to express dissatisfaction with any member of CMS or of any decision by any of its bodies (be it physics group, subdetector editorial board, member of any particular board or committee…).  It should be assumed that while we may/can engage in lively discussions prior to any decision of CMS, the full collaboration will stand behind the decision once the latter is made.

Last updated 539 days ago by Jen Nahn

A. DRAFT: CMS Guidelines on Blogs

Guidelines are needed for blogs due to sensitivity of the subject and requests coming from outside agencies for people in CMS to blog about their work.

Wide internal discussion, even if contentious, is useful and healthy in a Collaboration of our size. However, people should act with the normal common sense, decent manners and sensitivity to possible contentious matters when in the public arena.

The guidelines set in other experiments, especially CDF, are used to set up our own ones. Blogs can be classified into three categories: scientific, internal and private.

1. Scientific

This includes discussion and interpretation of CMS physics results. Nothing should be discussed or shown that has not yet been approved. Furthermore, bloggers should kindly refrain from posting discussions on just-approved CMS results until the collaboration has officially presented them first. This can be after the first public talk is presented or after the results have been submitted for publication.

Discussion of approved results is, of course, allowed. However, personal interpretation of these, beyond what is agreed upon by the collaboration, should not be discussed in the public domain.

At all times blogs should point to the official and public sources of CMS information.

2. Internal

This includes information about what occurs in internal CMS meetings, in interactions and discussions with collaborators, and in general the details of all our operations (including all of our procedures, formal and ad hoc, as well as details of the internal status of any particular issue). Our meetings and “business” discussions are to be considered as PRIVATE. No information from these should show up in blogs.

All our collaborators, including managers, convenors, reviewers, students etc. NEED to know that they can safely operate in an environment where they are not scrutinized by, or exposed to, the outside at any time.


3. Private

By common sense and decency, revealing personal information about one’s colleagues ought not be done. Again, the baseline is to assume that they don’t want you talking about them in public – even if what is said is “good” or “positive”.

By the same common sense and decency, blogs should never be used to express dissatisfaction with any member of CMS or of any decision by any of its bodies (be it physics group, subdetector editorial board, member of any particular board or committee…).  It should be assumed that while we may/can engage in lively discussions prior to any decision of CMS, the full collaboration will stand behind the decision once the latter is made.