rokicki@polya.STANFORD.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) (03/13/88)
[ I still need more memory for my minirack C . . . ] Let's appoint a committee (maybe seven, maybe nine) people to discuss this, and come up with a proposal. This proposal will be written up and posted to Usenet, and comments taken for a period of three weeks. Then, the committee will meet again, and submit a revised proposal, hopefully in time for the Developers' Conference in DC. Maybe we can schedule some time there for another meeting, and shortly thereafter, we will have a concrete message-passing protocol. A standard. That will accomodate everyone, hopefully. How does this sound? Meetings should probably take place here in the bay area; I'm willing to organize this, and even find a meeting place and write things up. Volunteers and nominations for committee members are being accepted. Discussion at BADGE just doesn't work; there are too many people there. A committee can make decisions. I want this hammered out, and soon. -tom
pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) (03/14/88)
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 --
ugmiker@sunybcs.uucp (Michael Reilly) (03/14/88)
In article <7646@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> pete@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Pete Goodeve) writes: >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 -- I agree with pete, I think alot of people are following this thread, and as we have seen, many people are still mulling over thier own ideas before they post them, which is GOOD !!! These people will be lost in the shuffle, because some of them are interested, but have not posted yet.... Also what about the people who are following the thread, but don't have anything (worthwhile) to say right now, but might be extremely helpful/knowledgable when the project gets to the next step...... mike Mike Reilly President of UGCSA University of Buffalo Computer Science csnet: ugmiker@buffalo.CSNET uucp: ..!{nike|watmath,alegra,decvax}!sunybcs!ugmiker BITNET: ugmiker@sunybcs.BITNET <-OR-> ACSCMPR@ubvmsc.BITNET
randy@bcsaic.UUCP (Randy Groves) (03/18/88)
In article <9281@sunybcs.UUCP> ugmiker@sunybcs.UUCP (Michael Reilly) writes: >> >>This topic was started on the net, and I think we should keep it there -- > > >I agree with pete, I think alot of people are following this thread ... As one of the people following the thread with much interest but no input as yet, I also would like this to continue on the net. Good stuff. As to Pete's comment about the speed at which we should go about this, I think that it is important to take our time and hash it out. -- -randy groves - Boeing Advanced Technology Center UUCP: ..!uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!randy USNail: Boeing Computer Services CSNET: randy@boeing.com PO Box 24346 M/S 7L-68 VOICE: (206)865-3424 Seattle, WA 98124
UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (03/24/88)
How many of you IPC guys are academics?
What kind of prestige rating would the Amiga get if the
IPC standard was an ANSI standard? I bet there are several
good articles lurking around in there, plus travel money to
exotic big city airports...
lee
#! rnews 1993
Relay-Version: Version 1.0 Netnews CMS/BITNET 5/19/85; site PSUVM.BITNET
Posting-Version: Version 1.0 Netnews CMS/BITNET 5/19/85; site PSUVM.BITNET
Path: psuvm.bitnet!whv
From: Jeffrey R Kell <JEFF@UTCVM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.liaison
Subject: Document readers
Message-ID: <36983WHV@PSUVM>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 88 12:02:42 EDT
Reply-To: Jeffrey R Kell <JEFF@UTCVM>
Sender: Network Site Liaisons <LIAISON@RUTVM1>
RECEIVED: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by PSUVM.BITNET (Mailer X1.25) with BSMTP id 4741; Wed, 23 Mar 88 12:41:54 EST
RECEIVED: by PUCC (Mailer X1.25) id 3993; Wed, 23 Mar 88 12:42:48 EST
RECEIVED: from BITNIC(MAILER) by RUTVM1 (Mailer X1.25) id 5624; Wed, 23 Mar 88 12:41:54 EST
RECEIVED: by BITNIC (Mailer X1.24) id 0385; Wed, 23 Mar 88 12:31:55 EDT
RECEIVED: from UTCVM.BITNET by BITNIC.BITNET (Mailer X1.24) with BSMTP id 0381; Wed, 23 Mar 88 12:31:10 EDT
RECEIVED: by UTCVM (Mailer X1.25) id 3690; Wed, 23 Mar 88 12:14:28 EDT
I have been asked to review the possibility of using document readers
for our faculty word processing department and also for the Office of
Records for transcript input. Although I personally think it a bit
ambitious and/or expensive, I would enjoy being proven wrong as they
are quite taken by the idea. Any references, war stories, and/or happy
endings you could take a minute to share would be appreciated; in
particular: approximate price range, host requirements, flexibility
in fonts/sizes/spacing, background tolerance (transcripts usually have
a background shade or watermark), etc. Thanks in advance.
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Jeffrey R Kell, Dir Tech Services | UTC Postmaster/Listserv co-ord. |
| Admin Computing, 117 Hunter Hall |Bitnet: JEFF@UTCVM.BITNET |
| Univ of Tennessee at Chattanooga |JEFF%UTCVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU |
| Chattanooga, TN 37403 | Bell: (615)-755-4551 |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+