Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!pete
From: pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: IPC---Let's Figure This Out
Message-ID: <7646@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 14 Mar 88 10:51:46 GMT
References: <2144@polya.STANFORD.EDU>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: pete@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Pete Goodeve)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 57



rokicki@polya.STANFORD.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) writes:

> Let's appoint a committee (maybe seven, maybe nine) people to
> discuss this, and come up with a proposal. .... [and suggests details]
> ......
> Meetings should probably take place here in the bay area; ....


Sorry, but I don't like this idea much at all.  [I should admit straight
out that Tom and I met this afternoon, and discussed his suggestion.  I
don't think either of us had much effect on the other's thoughts.]  Here
are my reasons.

This topic was started on the net, and I think we should keep it there --
and finish it there -- if at all possible.  Actually the number of people
corresponding extensively on this is about Tom's magic number seven [plus
or minus two?], but they're certainly not concentrated in any one area.
But that's the way the net is supposed to work isn't it?  Face to face
meetings would automatically cut the majority of this group out of the
discussion.  It would be totally high handed to take over the project like
that.

This is sort of a noble experiment, and I really feel we ought to try to
make it work.  "Computer Conferencing" is supposed to be a grand new way of
making decisions and reaching consensus [I've even heard it touted as a New
Age for Mankind...] but it would be nice to prove that this is true. We've
certainly seen some of the problems: egos run high, and tempers short
sometimes, and people are often happier giving their own opinions than
really listening to others.  Too, such a quantity of material flows past
that we are likely to read hastily and make snap decisions.  Nevertheless,
there have been a lot of useful suggestions made, problems raised, and
solutions proposed, in the past couple of weeks.  I suspect that there are
a few topics that haven't been considered yet -- I have a couple for sure
-- and the best way to get people thinking about them is to roll them all
out into public view on the net.  I would hope that more -- rather than
fewer -- folks would look at the proposals, evaluate them seriously, and
give their feedback (especially scenarios that would need IPC, and their
impact on our ideas).

Finally, I don't quite think it's as urgent as Tom does.  After all we've
had about three years now to figure out something like this, and we've none
of us (aside from Bill Hawes) done much of anything concrete about it.  We
oughtn't to suddenly turn around now and trip over ourselves in haste.
If it really ends up not working, then things will have to be decided by a
smaller group, but I'd like to keep up the experiment for a while longer.


So let me put out a couple of pleas.  Let's keep the discussion on the net,
unless we end up in despair, and -- if you are REALLY interested in the
topic and want to participate -- DON'T whip out snap answers to little
points you disagree with, but take the time to consider what other people
are saying.  There are a LOT of aspects involved, and someone else's
apparent stupidity is more likely simply a different point of view.

                                            -- Pete --