peter@world.std.com (Peter Salus) (06/04/90)
I note that once again the question of the USENIX Association's control of its membership is on the Board agenda. As I think that this gets introduced periodically as a totally bogus issue, I'm putting in my two cents. The South African government and electorate are (by any definition except their own) evil and oppressive. The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 enjoins U.S. companies from exporting computer information to South Africa. Recently, the Commerce Department has permitted export to some academic institutions. I do not believe that the release of Nelson Mandela has changed things a great deal. I do not think that selective exports in any way restrict the oppressive regime. I see no relaxation of South African offenses against Indians, racially mixed individuals or couples, Jews, or other non-Anglo, non-Afrikaans groups. I see no reason why I should (even indirectly) help a police state gain better control through transaction processing programs, for example. When their purses hurt enough, they may relax their oppression. To hell with them. Peter H. Salus -- The difference between practice and theory in practice is always greater than the difference between practice and theory in theory.
gnn@spike.ai.mit.edu (George Neville-Neil) (06/04/90)
In article <1990Jun4.141811.1075@world.std.com> peter@world.std.com (Peter Salus) writes: > I note that once again the question of the USENIX Association's > control of its membership is on the Board agenda. > As I think that this gets introduced periodically as a totally > bogus issue, I'm putting in my two cents. *** Anti Aparthied Comments Nuked to Save Bandwidth > To hell with them. > Peter H. Salus Peter, I totally agree with you about South Africa, but at the risk of sounding lie a complete dolt what does that have to do with USENIX ? Did I miss an important posting ? Is there a USENIX South Africa scheduled ?? If we are supporting SA then I oppose this. But I think I am just clueless and our machine lost an important message :-) Later, George gnn@ai.mit.edu PS One World, One People.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (06/05/90)
In article <1990Jun4.141811.1075@world.std.com> peter@world.std.com (Peter Salus) writes: >I see no reason why I should (even indirectly) help a >police state gain better control through transaction >processing programs, for example. I wasn't aware that USENIX membership elected officers to do their political, social, or religious thinking and value judgment for them. Why don't you stick to functionally relevant business.
shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) (06/05/90)
In article <13051@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >I wasn't aware that USENIX membership elected officers to do their >political, social, or religious thinking and value judgment for them. How do you make your voting decisions? I certainly tend not to vote for politically conservative candidates because issues like South African participation inevitably do arise. While I found Peter's language to be unfortunately fervent (sorry, Peter), the issue itself is real and I would not like to see it ignored. >Why don't you stick to functionally relevant business. The issue is functionally relevant. Every interaction and transaction is based on some assumptions and has some effect. I'm glad to know that the directors are at least thinking about some of the issues involved in interacting with other businesses and organizations. Usenix does not exist in a vacuum. -- Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (06/05/90)
In article <1239@mtxinu.UUCP> shore@mtxinu.com (Melinda Shore) writes: >In article <13051@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>I wasn't aware that USENIX membership elected officers to do their >>political, social, or religious thinking and value judgment for them. >How do you make your voting decisions? For USENIX officers, I try to pick those that I think are most likely to enhance the UNIX community's experience as such. It is a terrible design-level mistake to have ALL organizations addressing the SAME issues. USENIX's business is UNIX, not apartheid. Surely you can see the distinction.
fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (06/06/90)
In article <13051@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > In article <1990Jun4.141811.1075@world.std.com> peter@world.std.com (Peter Salus) writes: > >I see no reason why I should (even indirectly) help a > >police state gain better control through transaction > >processing programs, for example. > I wasn't aware that USENIX membership elected officers to do their > political, social, or religious thinking and value judgment for them. > Why don't you stick to functionally relevant business. Personally I appreciate organizations I join having a conscience. Helping "a police state ..." is clearly taking sides. By not being willing to help you are staying neutral. I don't want USENIX (or any other organization) to actively overthrow any governments. Further, I encourage them to tell me that such a decision has been made. That means that if (1) I want to support a police state I can send them my own money or (2) I don't want to support it I now have more information and can decide not to support organizations that support it. -- Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl (206)527-3385
zwicky@sparkyfs.istc.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky) (06/06/90)
In article <13051@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990Jun4.141811.1075@world.std.com> peter@world.std.com (Peter Salus) writes: >>I see no reason why I should ... >I wasn't aware that USENIX membership elected officers to do their >political, social, or religious thinking and value judgment for them. >Why don't you stick to functionally relevant business. Peter is not now, and never was, an elected officer of USENIX. He was for a while the Executive Director, but that is appointed, not elected. He now works for SUG, where I believe the issue of South Africa has not arisen, and is a mere member of USENIX like the rest of us, with an equal right to personal opinions. (And while I'm at it, South Africa *is* functionally relevant; the political issues were raised by the U.S. government when they placed the embargo that uunet is trying to deal with, not originally by USENIX.) Elizabeth
ables@lot.ACA.MCC.COM (King Ables) (06/06/90)
Obviously what has happened here is either Peter began expounding his
opinion in a forum which was previously ignorant of the issues that caused
him to feel the need to express himself, or the subject was introduced
but did not propogate to all the sites.
Personally, the first thing I knew about any of this was when I saw Peter's
message. I was somewhat taken aback as well. Not that I disagree, but I saw
no cause for its origin.
Inferring from Elizabeth's last paragraph, apparently there is an issue with
the uunet machine and South Africa (users, network connection, something) of
which most of us seem to be unaware. If this newsgroup wasn't included in the
beginning of the discussion, this is where Peter should have provided us all
with an introduction to the subject as a preface to what he wanted to say.
He may very well have (albeit falsly) assumed that we were aware of it through
another avenue.
Or, if something did happen in this newsgroup, I (and apparently others) missed
it, so perhaps dropped messages are still a regular occurence.
In either case, could someone familiar with it (perhaps even Peter?) post
a "prequel" message about what's happening? I think this would help us
put Peter's message in better context.
\begin{soapbox}
In general, I agree that people representing an organization about a subject
should concern themselves with the subject only as it relates to the organization
which they are representing. I.e. if an issue concerning South Africa and
Usenix does arise, then certainly the decision should be made based both on how
it would affect Usenix and how it would affect the people involved (and how that
affect would reflect on the Usenix organization).
We (Usenix) shouldn't ever go LOOKING for political (or any other kind of)
trouble unless it affects the ORGANIZATION or its members or something the
organization is directly involved in. I'm sure the Usenix membership would
unanimously agree that dumping seven bizillion gallons of crude oil into
the ocean would be a "bad" thing. However, I don't think the Usenix organization
has any business taking a public stand against that. There are other organizations
through which that happens (which we can all go out and join if we so desire).
\end{soapbox}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Ables Micro Electronics and Computer Technology Corp.
ables@mcc.com 3500 W. Balcones Center Drive
+1 512 338 3749 Austin, TX 78759
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's tough playing James Bond in an Abbott and Costello world."
- Hope Steadmanshore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) (06/06/90)
In article <13055@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >USENIX's business is UNIX, not apartheid. Well, Usenix's business may be Unix (or maybe "Unix-like operating systems" or some other mumble), but I fail to see that the organization has any kind of license or mandate to operate irresponsibly or without sensitivity to the issues. Besides, it is my understanding that the South Africa issue is being thrust upon Usenix, not the other way around. Too bad Peter wasn't clearer. -- Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore
taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) (06/07/90)
Peter Salus writes about the Usenix board having to wrestle with the problem of dealing with South Africa, saying, in part: "As I think that this gets introduced periodically as a totally bogus issue..." Well, it's not a bogus issue, Peter. While I can appreciate and agree with your commentary on the South African government, the actual situation that the Usenix Board is facing is that a university in South Africa has applied for institutional membership in the Association. This particular University (University of Cape Town?) also has an exemplary record of working within the system to ease the pain and evil of apartheid, as well as actively protesting within the chains of command (what an appropriate phrase!) about various apartheid- related issues. As I recall, this particular school is also one of the few non-racially segregated institutions in South Africa. Slightly different from Peters' comment that "I see no reason why I should (even indirectly) help a police state gain better control through transaction processing programs, for example." isn't it? While there is clearly a link between highed education and the power and control of the government, there also clearly has to be a point where the people within the country that are trying *from within* to change the system are supported by those outside. As a particularly interesting example, Hewlett-Packard has a locally- owned sales office in Johannesburg (I think) which follows the strict HP guidelines on the hiring of minorities, handicapped people, etc. The office, in fact, is one of the few in South Africa that continues to deal with the western technology firms *and* it's racially mixed. Should we be shunning HP for continuing to do business with South Africa? Indeed, there is a vocal minority of share holders that year after year manage to get the "divest from South Africa" question added to the yearly stockholders election (and it fails each time). The point here is that I personally believe that large and complex political situations cannot be handled in the same way that we might punish a small child by unrelated punitive damage. More appropriate as an analogy might be to observe that if a class full of child delinquents has a few children that are trying to infuse some rational thought and order, shouldn't THEY be supported by the outside forces? (of course, "Lord of the Flies" demonstrates a possible scenario when that *doesn't* happen, too). If we're asked to deal with the South African government directly, or any agency or department of the government, then I would favor us at the least taking a hard and tough stance in requesting that they PROVE to us (and the US Department of Commerce) that they're part of the solution, not part of the problem. Generally, I think that's a reasonable way to deal with the situation overall, actually. If this University in question can demonstrate to the appropriate parties (which would include the Usenix general membership) that they're actively working to end apartheid, then let's give them support to make them stronger, and make their voice louder in the halls of government!! Btw: this is indeed an issue that we cannot decide amongst ourselves exclusively; the United States Department of Commerce (among others) has legal restrictions and sanctions against the government of South Africa and we would have to work within their guidelines and recommendations so that we, as an association, don't get slapped by our own government. Quickly, perhaps going more into politics than I should, I'd like to address a few more of Peter's points; you're free to skip to the next article if you don't want to hear this... > I do not think that selective exports in any way restrict the oppressive > regime. I see no relaxation of South African offenses against Indians, > racially mixed individuals or couples, Jews, or other non-Anglo, > non-Afrikaans groups. What's the source of your information? How fast do you believe that governments can change in peacetime? Or do you favor a complete civil war? Clearly Mandela has helped ease much of the growing tension in Pretoria and throughout the country, and clearly the government of South Africa have made many worthwhile concessions to African National Congress (ANC) in the past year or two. I think that we need to compare SA not with our outside ideas of "what it should be" but rather with what it was like a year, two years, five, ten, fifty years ago. And I believe that it's changing for the better. I also believe that minority rule is not the right way to run a country, but I recognize that it will take a number of years before the Afrikaan groups can completely let go of the reins (again, perhaps another overly appropriate metaphor). Consider that currently in South Africa there is a fierce debate about, and I quote the "Sowetan" of Johannesburg: "...whether a post-apartheid government should nationalize the white-owned economy to raise the living standards of impoverished blacks" Leaders of the ANC have "advocated the nationalization of major industries." "The economic issue is seen as crucial by blacks and by many in white communities who are 'more fearful of losing a priviliged life style than of ending formal racial segregation'. But common ground does exist: Both sides agree that the state would not have sufficient resources to buy controlling interests in big companies and that actions that would discourage foreign or domestic investment should not be taken." Meanwhile, the financial "Business Day" of Johannesburg: ".. has been scathing in their editorials on ANC economic policy, emphasizing the movement's ties to the SOuth African Communist Party (SACP). 'The ANC', it says, 'has forfeited the confidence of international investors, none of whom is to be found in the bankrupt tyrannies and socialized slums from which the SACP and ANC have gathered their economic ideas'" [both excerpts adapted from "World Press Review", June 1990] Sounds like there really *is* progress, doesn't it? Sounds like things are quite on the right track and that the people of South Africa are aware of what the important issues are, and are facing them in their own public forums to hew out a platform for continued reforms... However, Peter continues his article with the comment: > When their purses hurt enough, they may relax their oppression. Sure, but that's not historical reality, is it? I think that if we continue to blindly screw the SA government into the ground they'll react with what will appear to be positive changes but will really be just barely enough to lift economic sanctions. And as soon as they've accomplished that, they'd restore the previous structure of power (though perhaps a bit more subtly than the current - improving - organization) and be flush. (look at the current GATT negotiations for a good forum for this type of machination, too) Instead, just like a pop-psychology self-help counselor, I'll point out that change must be motivated from within, not without. If South Africa is really going to be successfully changed into a true democratic government, then we need to assist those that are making the change there already, not tar them all with the same brush (historical metaphor choosen deliberately). And for the record, to fend off the inevitable flames, I most assuredly do not support apartheid or indeed any form of rule that imposes the wants, needs, or desires of the minority upon the majority. I further do not agree with any discriminatory practices, whether they be the majority to the minority, or vice versa. I simply suggest that we look at the situation -- within the bounds of the law -- in a rational and thoughtful manner, and try to offer aid and assistance to those organizations, groups, and agencies that are trying to bring about change. Besides, if we succeed in completely closing the borders, there'll be one hell of a bloody revolution, and I'm not sure that I want to know that my thoughts and views contributed to the death of thousands of innocent (and not-so-innocent) people. Is it worth the loss of human life on a grand scale to have the change happen in months rather than in a few years? I don't think so. -- Dave Taylor Intuitive Systems Mountain View, California taylor@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (06/07/90)
In article <13055@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > In article <1239@mtxinu.UUCP> shore@mtxinu.com (Melinda Shore) writes: > >In article <13051@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > >>I wasn't aware that USENIX membership elected officers to do their > >>political, social, or religious thinking and value judgment for them. > >How do you make your voting decisions? > > For USENIX officers, I try to pick those that I think are most likely > to enhance the UNIX community's experience as such. It is a terrible > design-level mistake to have ALL organizations addressing the SAME > issues. USENIX's business is UNIX, not apartheid. Surely you can > see the distinction. This is unfortunately happening. Back in the "old days" when we bought groceries from the corner store, run by someone who lived in the neighborhood, we could, for example, request that they buy locally made products whenever possible. As we have attempted to divorce ourselves more and more from the real world we lose touch with such issues. If we attempt to think of our jobs and/or interests in computing as being only computing and not having any effect on the outside world we are living in a vacuum. My decision to buy a particular computer is partly based on how such a purchase effects the standard of living of myself, members of my community and fellow residents of the planet. Taking all this into consideration is a lot of work. I, for one, appreciate that USENIX is willing to look at an issue for me and give me some information. If other organizations were also willing to "stick their neck out" things like the repressive situation in South Africa would not exist. -- Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl (206)527-3385
tower@buita.bu.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (06/07/90)
* It be nice if someone from the Board or our Executive Director, would fill us in on what the issue is here. At the least, it will save each of them time at Anaheim filling people in individually. Are their sections from prior Board Meeting minutes that might be posted? * I suspect this issue will be brought up at the Open Board Meeting next week in Anaheim. * IMHO, the Association should consider the political and social effects of its actions. I would hate to see Unix used to assist anyone in oppressing another. Professionals need to apply their expertises carefully and with conscience. And so should the professional associations representing them. thanx -len
domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop) (06/07/90)
The trouble with getting objective information on this issue is that everybody seems to be polarized. I certainly am! Joining those asking for more details, I'd like to see some clarification of the status of the news paths apparently shown on the map world-flow.ps which can be produced from materials recently posted to news.lists.ps-maps. (Thanks to Brian Reid.) The paths seem to be one-way links from sites in Capetown and Johannesburg to uunet (or thereabouts). This may or may not contradict, for example, John Quarterman in "The Matrix" (page 358) ''Because UUNET has not yet been declared a common carrier, there are a few legal glitches: certain organizations in South Africa cannot be allowed to connect, and no organizations in the USSR and certain Soviet bloc countries are permitted, due to U.S. government restrictions.'' (Great index, by the way, John.) Depends whether uunet has applied for and been granted common carrier status (whatever this entails, and whatever responsibilities it brings), and whether the connected sites are outside the class of ``certain organizations''. In any event, it seems to me that USENIX involvement with and influence on the operational/legal/moral/political decisions of UUNET is limited to the voice of its one director on UUNET's three member board. The board of USENIX can presumably instruct that director to take a particular line on a particular issue, such as the connection of a South Aftrican university to the net via UUNET -- and possibly to get outvoted. Pesumably, that might be one intention of the item on the recently-posted agenda for the up-coming meeting of the USENIX board of directors (Message-ID <369@usenix.ORG> -- hurry, before it expires. Oh, OK then: ``16. Should we continue to duck on the South Africa question, and explore the issues of the Board's power and obligation to limit memberships?''). Am I correct? -- Dominic Dunlop
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (06/07/90)
In article <811@ssc.UUCP> fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: >If other organizations were also willing to "stick their neck out" things >like the repressive situation in South Africa would not exist. Not to pick on you in particular, but it's the prevalence of this kind of simplistic approach to big problems that contributes to the problems getting worse. To properly determine the action to take, you should first find out what is going on, obtain as much relevant background information as possible, then evaluate the situation with respect to a justifiable, consistent philosophy. Clearly profession technical societies do not even come close to being able to properly make such a determination. Therefore, if they attempt to meddle in such affairs it is most likely that their actions will be totally inappropriate, judged by objective standards. Much better to leave these affairs to those whose primary job it is to deal with them. Note that, according to what I've been privately told by past and present USENIX officers, the actual issue is what to do about the request on the part of what seems to be an anti-apartheid group in South Africa that wants to affiliate with USENIX. The only reason this is even an issue is that it would cost the USENIX associate a considerable amount of money in legal fees etc. before they would be able to admit the group, due to U.S. government restrictions against dealing with any agent in a country that practices apartheid. (We at the same time encourage doing business with the bloodiest government in history; would you say that our foreign "policy" is rational?) While some would favor admitting the group, and some seem to think that dealing with them would somehow encourage apartheid practices by the government of South Africa (I don't follow their reasoning), the practical matter to be decided is simply whether or not to spend the money on a legal battle with the U.S. Dept. of Commerce about this. Since I don't see the need for USENIX to volunteer for an expensive crusade, I think we should just say, "Sorry, so long as our government imposes obstacles, we cannot pursue admitting you." Of course the outcome is unfair to the group requesting admission, but that's because the U.S. law is unfair.
williams@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Williams (SYSGROUP)) (06/08/90)
Would it be appropos for all sides of this issue to be discussed in an article in ;login: ? If, indeed, it is an issue of "should we spend money fighting our Government's stupid rules", then perhaps that aritcle could suggest ways in which members (individual and corporate) who find the situation intolerable could put pressure on their representatives to change things. Who are the most important Congress-critters? What commitees? That sort of thing. That way, we as individuals could make up our own minds as to how much we want to get involved. I'm not saying that Usenix should or should not spend money on this. I am saying that it seems entirely appropriate to me that Usenix use its publications to educate its membership on an issue relevant to the organization, and give them information on what they can do, if they choose. Such an article could also be used by the Board to to get some sense of how the membership at large feels about this. Spoken: Jim Williams Domain: williams@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov Phone: +1-301-555-1212 UUCP: uunet!mimsy!williams USPS: NASA/GSFC, Code 633, Greenbelt, MD 20771 Motto: There is no 'd' in "kluge"! It rhymes with "deluge", not "sludge".
gnn@spike.ai.mit.edu (George Neville-Neil) (06/08/90)
In article <13072@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > ....................... Clearly profession technical > societies do not even come close to being able to properly make such a > determination. Therefore, if they attempt to meddle in such affairs it > is most likely that their actions will be totally inappropriate, judged > by objective standards. Much better to leave these affairs to those > whose primary job it is to deal with them. FLAME ON : Bull !! All associations are made up of people, and in a democracy it is the people who decide. Just because someone is "trained" to be a politician/lawmaker/foreign relations person does not mean that they have anny better grip of any political situation. It does mean that they know how to get elected and stay there but that is all. There isn't an institution on Earth that can reliably teach someone enough psychology/socioligy/politics/esp to deal with real politics. Witness the foreign policy failures of successive countries administrations since 1900. Or even further back. I for one support the idea that everyone get involved. The more data you have the less likely that one error will skew you too far from the truth. In this vein the more minds are turned towards a problem the better the solution. Parallel processing you know :-) I take offense at your statement sir and believe that you are sorely mistaken. FLAME OFF : Sorry about that but it really got under my skin. I think we should see what we can do to help these people in SA if they are anti-apartheid. Has anyone considered setting a vote up in USENIX for this ?? Later George ______________________ One World, One People. ----------------------
royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Keenan Royle) (06/09/90)
In article <1990Jun7.113633.9683@tsa.co.uk> domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop) writes: }The trouble with getting objective information on this issue is that }everybody seems to be polarized. I certainly am! } }Joining those asking for more details, I'd like to see some }clarification of the status of the news paths apparently shown on the }map world-flow.ps which can be produced from materials recently posted }to news.lists.ps-maps. (Thanks to Brian Reid.) The paths seem to be }one-way links from sites in Capetown and Johannesburg to uunet (or }thereabouts). As far as I can figure from the uucp map data all UUCP traffic to and from SA goes between ddsw1 in Illinios and olsa99 in Johannesburg. -- Keenan Royle royle@cs.indiana.edu
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (07/19/90)
did anything happen regarding the connection of uunet to a south african site? i know there was a huge amount of discussion previously, but I missed the board meeting. (and the conference too for that matter) --Ed Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept <emv@math.lsa.umich.edu>
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (07/19/90)
I don't think USENIX has any say over UUNET any more. And I don't think that UUNET, as a non-profit corporation, is allowed to refuse service to any party who wishes to make legal use of it, although I'm not fully up on that sort of law. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
ellie@usenix.ORG (Ellie Young) (07/25/90)
In article <EMV.90Jul18155733@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu>, emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: > > did anything happen regarding the connection of uunet to a south african site? > i know there was a huge amount of discussion previously, but I missed the board > meeting. > > (and the conference too for that matter) > > --Ed > > Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept <emv@math.lsa.umich.edu> Ed, A posting of the Summary of the USENIX Board of Directors meeting in Anaheim will follow shortly, and it has the details of that discussion and subsequent decision made by the Board on the South AFrica question. Ellie Young, USENIX