Subject: Re: In Defense of BOB

From: "Santanu Bhattacharya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:19:45 +0530

Hi,

    Me too rarely post message to this mailing list but listen to this list
hoping for the kind of discussion you have mentioned in your mail. But I am
not sure whether anything worthwhile comes from this mailing list or not. I
am thinking of gathering some statistics about the original ideas or
important decisions which has come from this mailing list in last few years.
Can any one give me any pointer to this ? Otherwise I have to go through the
archive of this mailing list to find that and you know what I will get in
the most of the posting!!!

Santanu
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Towle <[email-masked]>
To: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Mitch Denny
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, January 21, 1999 2:27 AM
Subject: In Defense of BOB

>
>I am new to the IETF forum. I am sorely disappointed that, what I thought
>was an open forum to discuss technical issues, has turned out to be more
>of an abusive and spiteful group.
>
>The IETF is supposed to develop new ideas and create the new architecture
>for the Internet. Maybe I am idealistic but I believe BOB has the Kernel
>for a new idea. We should use this forum to nurture these new ideas,
>maybe it is not right what he is proposing, but I have seen few responses
>that have actually questioned whether it might actually work in a less
>dramatic fashion.
>
>I grew up in America, on the net. I have built enough DNS servers to make
>my nightmares quite amusing. Now while in Europe I see the problem that
>bob has tuned into. This system works ONLY if the Central Authority has
>trained staff, and actually knows what DNS is. That is NOT the case in
>many of the countries and large organizations over here. This is a new
>system for these governments and the administrators are not currently
>handling it to well. There needs to be a better way, Maybe not BOBs way,
>but we need to discuss the technical issues regarding this topic, not
>whether or not you agree with BOB.
>
>Using the talent that is obviously participating in this forum, I would
>hope that a solid and real concept could be produced, not stepped on and
>laughed at. What do you think the original groups (The guys who worked so
>hard to invent this technology)  e-mails looked like discussing
>smtp,ftp,nntp,TCPIP,  and the like????
>I would hope that they were alot more civilized and alot less personally
>abusive.
>
>Idealistic, yes, guilty!!! But ,and I hope that there are a few souls
>here who can stand with me, I want to help make this thing better, not
>worse!!! I am finally technically competent enough to help in this
>process and I really want to participate in a real discussion regarding
>new ideas, not personal garbage.
>
>BOB A note to you!!! Please lets keep this non personal, and be willing
>to come down of the idea a little to work out a feasible and workable
>solution. I believe you might have a kernel to something really valuable,
>but life is full of compromises, be willing to work them through, but
>remain the conscience for the discussion and lets make something happen.
>
>Sorry for the blah blah blah, but I think this group needs to re-focus
>and address some real issues.
>
>Thanx
>Richard Towle
>
>Bob Allisat wrote:
>
>> Valdis
>> > Work in technical support for a while, and explain to people
>> > why they *should not* remove this 100Mbyte file from their
>> > system.  Explain why they *should* update it on a daily basis.
>> > Explain why they have to tie up their modems with a 2Mbyte
>> > download ever few days. Spend a few days debugging the
>> > strange and wonderful "cannot connect" errors caused when
>> > a favorite http server changes its IP address, and all the
>> > users don't download an update.
>> >
>> > But hey, you obviously know more about this stuff than those
>> > of us who have been doing it for a living for the last 20 years.
>> > So I guess you're right and we're wrong, it's not that daunting. ;)
>>
>>  It is not a matter of right or wrong but of choice.
>>  Nor am I disputing your experience or knowledge. And
>>  my experience in providing support to clients reveals
>>  similar difficulties you intimate. However...
>>
>>  The sophistication of hardware, software, connectivity
>>  and - most importantly - of the individual accessing the
>>  network is increasing greatly. I can go to any department
>>  or office supply store and purchase what, in my memory,
>>  was unavailable even to the wealthiest corporation. So
>>  I believe it is completely realistic and workable.
>>
>>  Tirrah,
>>
>>  Bob Allisat
>>
>>  Free Community Network _ [email-masked]
>>  http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat
>>  [email-masked]
>

---

From: David Borman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:13:46 -0600 (CST)

> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:13:51 -0600
> To: Richard Towle <[email-masked]>
> From: Micah Bartell <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: In Defense of BOB
> ...
> I'm also fairly new to the IETF forum, and have found that while it claims to
> be a forum to discuss technical issues, that is not what it is.  As far as
> being
> an abusive and spiteful group, I would call it more of a frustrated group and 
> annoyed group.

The truth of the matter is that:
     1)	Most of the discussion of technical issues happens
	on the individual mailing lists of each Working Group
     2)	The vast majority of the people on the main IETF mailing
	list filter and/or ignore the noise on the list, having
	learned that they are being baited and it's just not worth
	their time.

The perceived "abusive and spiteful" or "frustrated .. and annoyed" group
is just a small subset.  Most of us on the list are calm and considerate,
ignoring the noise while waiting for the true technical issues.  (But we're
not perfect, and sometimes people can't hold back the urge to respond any
longer.  I hope we're all allowed occasional lapses in judgement.)

I'll now go back to ignoring the noise.

			-David Borman, [email-masked]

---

From: David Borman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:13:46 -0600 (CST)