Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bywater!dagobah!mis
From: mis@Seiden.com (Mark Seiden)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: uunet service improvement suggestions (you asked for it...)
Keywords: uunet
Message-ID: <3628@dagobah.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 91 04:54:51 GMT
References: <3627@dagobah.UUCP> <127213@uunet.UU.NET>
Organization: Seiden and Associates, Inc, Stamford, CT
Lines: 173

In comp.mail.uucp rick adams writes:

>A few facts the Seiden is either unwilling or unable to comprehend:

>UUNET has been independent of USENIX since 1/1/89. His obsession with
>USENIX being responsible for UUNET is  misguided and misplaced and only
>serves to harass the USENIX board.

thanks for your clarification of the business relationship.  i am sure
people (i among them) are interested in knowing the facts though i
would have prefered that they be presented by some board member not so
involved with uunet. (i've been called a few things, but never "the
Seiden"...  sounds like some sort of mythological monster...)

if this followup constitutes a complaint, adams is the only one on the
board who has so far complained, either in posting or in email.  in
december i received two notes from another board member commenting
thoughtfully on the points in my correspondence with adams 
and disagreeing with me on a couple of them, but not objecting
to the communication.

i've called for adams' resignation as a board member, a position which
i took only after enough data accumulated to persuade me that his
attitude makes him incongruent with the sort of person i'd hope to see
on the board of a membership organization like usenix.  

>UUNETs remaining financial ties with USENIX consist of paying back
>USENIX the money that UUNET LOST in the early days when USENIX was running it.

>When the final payment is made on 11/1/91, USENIX will have received
>every cent it risked on UUNET with interest. A rather happy
>scenarion considering they were prepared to lose it completely if the
>experiment failed.

(what's the interest rate on that loan?)

what you say is true of any investment.  take risk, get reward or
maybe lose it.  in this case, am i right that you get the future
reward, and what does usenix, the organization, get?

so now i understand that the usenix board, the usenix membership, and
uunet customers have nothing to say about uunet policies. of course
they can vote with their feet, if datacomm lines even have feet.  say,
is there any litigation threatened or been filed against uunet by a
customer or ex-customer?

i somehow doubt that usenix in originally making this deal had an
objective anything like "set rick adams up in a family business", but
rather "seed a solution to a problem consistent with the membership's
needs".  in my belief-system this would include some flexibility and
respect for customer concerns, although i wonder how these could be
specified contractually. as i see it, the solution has been heading 
far away from those objectives.

>USENIX did not finance a board members company. USENIX was financially 
>involved with UUNET for well over two years before I was elected
>to the USENIX board.

(and i voted for you, too... have i ever changed my mind...)

are you willing to go so far as to say no benefit has accrued to you
personally by virtue of your sitting on the usenix board?

perhaps some other board member would be willing to clarify 

- any modifications in agreements between usenix and uunet *since* 
adams was elected.

- what the rules are about board members with interest in some
business influencing usenix in a way that could benefit them.  for
example, i have heard that adams is not supposed to vote at board
meetings in issues involving uunet.  but is he permitted to (and does
he) participate in the discussion leading up to a vote?  is he present
during that discussion, and the ensuing vote?  if any of these are the
case, there would be ample opportunity to exert influence.

so why did uunet transform itself from a non-profit into a for-profit?
did usenix somehow benefit by that transformation?  i don't believe
that the details have been made public...

>---

>Seidens harassment of the USENIX board is typical of his tantrums when he
>doesnt get his way.

had the board authorized you to speak for them in this matter?
(apparently not).  "harass" is a strong term for sending a couple
pieces of email to people who are presumably friendly with you and
accustomed to receiving email anyway.

"typical of my tantrums"...  you're still not addressing any of the
substantive points, and you won't, even if other people ask.  you
just attack me, and your attempts to belittle me demean you considerably.

>I told him to go away because I found no value in his ranting and especially
>was annoyed by his repeated harassment of USENIX and his attempted harassment
>of the banks we are dealing with.

interesting that the *we* in this sentence means uunet, and not
usenix, and that "annoying rick" is equated with "harassment of
USENIX". to my mind, USENIX is the membership, not rick adams.

interesting how many people have sent me mail and told me that my
experience is not unique, you saw no value in their "rantings" either.

"repeated harassment"?  it's true i sent you several notes at uunet.
nary a reply, and plenty of opportunity to reply.  then i sent a note
saying that i hoped the specific points would and should be addressed,
or i could send a note to the usenix board, who i thought would give
you sage advice, maybe even *friendly advice* if anyone would.  

after your reply i sent the usenix board yet another note, asking them
if you were speaking for them in representing "the board's view" that
they were being harassed, and if so apologies would be forthcoming.
and guess what, you are the only one (wearing your usenix board
member's hat) who said he feels harassed!  big surprise!  how quickly
and elegantly you can switch those hats, and how nice for you that you
feel justified in representing the group when your personal interests
are questioned.

however, this response (which seems fairly definitive, as well as
clever) came from kirk mckusick:

"As a Usenix board member, I have no more authority over Uunet than I
have over AT&T long distance. As such, I have no interest in problems
that you may experience with either organization."

i find it regretful that the current arrangement in fact seems to
enforce the autonomy of the two organizations (hence no formal
accountability) and adams has shown he won't engage in informally 
dialogue either.

"harassment of the banks"? i referred to the usenix board in that same
note as "your bankers" because they lent you money, and might even be
able to influence your thinking, especially since they tend to be
sensible folks.  (and then in one subsequent note i cc:ed the board as
a courtesy)...  hardly repeated harassment by any interpretation.

i neither know nor care who else lends you money, though i've got some
interest in what usenix does/will do with my membership dues and what
you have done with my email service.  (but egads, you really say
*banks* have lent uunet money?  with *your* attitude?)

look, first one tries the civilized, direct, constructive approach.  i
did that. but if one gets no result and are concerned enough about the
issue or the process, one takes it further, and tries to be as
persuasive as possible using whatever appropriate mechanisms are
available.  this is about communication, rick, not harassment, and
there appears to be no appropriate mechanism for communicating with
you, especially since you exhibit such nonlinear behavior (long period
of total silence followed by explosive detonation, with no apparent
rational intermediate state) and a total denial that there is a single
substantive issue.

>I'm reminded of a child who when he isn't happy with what Daddy says
>runs to the grandparents hoping for a different answer.

(actually, the kid will first go to Mommy...)  but since you've
brought up the family metaphor: you remind *me* of the Daddy who is so
busy reading his newspaper that he ignores the kid asking the
questions and finally the kid runs away from home and joins the
circus.  ("Don't bother me, kid, shut up and watch TV".)

maybe adams thinks he's god, but i'm an atheist of long standing.

that adams uses both roles (as the president of uunet and as a board
member of usenix) in the same sentence, AND speaks for the Board without
their authorization (but as if he represents them as a body) only
reinforces my belief that he is inappropriate to have those two
roles.  rick, why don't you choose one role, and maybe you'll end up
performing it better than now?

mark seiden, mis@seiden.com, 1-(203) 329 2722 (voice), 1-(203) 322 1566 (fax)