eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/27/90)
In <13438@milton.u.washington.edu> Mark Crispin writes: >What I need to do to the jargon file is much more than "contribute" >with you as a filter. As an *original author*, I feel the file needs >major editing before it can be put forth as representative of the >community. No problem. That major editing is now and has been going on. As I have emphasized before, *I am not an autocratic editor* -- and several contributors have been willing to affirm that publicly, here. However, `non-autocratic' does not equal `doormat'. If you want changes made in a document I am editing, it is your responsibility to formulate them and send them to me. None of the other five First Edition authors have a problem with this, nor have any of the three hundred and fifty or so other people who've submitted entries, corrections, and criticism. >It isn't just the numerous inaccuracies or flat-out wrong statements >(e.g. the alleged death of TECO). It's also gratuitous insults such >as your anti-vi flame. What is there now myopic towards a very narrow >group, and is thoroughly offensive to other groups including the >original one that the jargon file represented. Well then, help me fix it! You saw my open letter to the ITS people. You may have noticed they've been publicly quiet since. What you don't know, I guess, is that several of the people who flamed me publicly are now cooperating with me privately, and that I'm now on the unix-haters mailing list. I am *actively seeking* input from cultures other than my own; some of the Multics fans and ITS purists on here can testify to that. >As an *original author*, I am offended that you announced your intent >to publish this with several editorial decisions as a fait accompli. I'm genuinely sorry you were offended. I assumed you'd received the manifesto I sent to the jargon-friends list, because I never got a bounce message. You may check with any of the other five about the date and ask them for a copy, or just take my word for it. I did *not* so announce until I'd already been in consultation with Guy Steele for months, and it'd become apparent that no one else was able or willing to do the editing job. I suppose this is as good a time as any to explain that I got into this almost by accident. Originally, what I wanted was to add a small amount of UNIX jargon to the file and nudge the maintainer (Guy) into distributing a revision. Before I knew it, I found I had doubled the length of the File. It was *Guy* who first suggested paper publication, because Terry Ehling at MIT Press had been noodging him for a revision of Steele-1983 for years. I liked the idea. For months after *that*, though, I still thought of him as the maintainer and assumed it'd be his name on the book (with a credit for assistance to me). I only mentally assumed the `maintainer' position after 2.1.5 (note that the jargon submissions address didn't change until 2.2.1). At this point it had been clear for a while that Guy had essentially no time or energy to co-edit and was willing to trust my judgement. I had become maintainer in all but name, and *after checking with him*, I assumed the mantle. My point is that you came in late in the process of a gradual transfer of responsibility. I did not hijack the File, but having assumed the responsibility I intend to carry it through according to maximum input from the net *and my best judgement*. >I was never consulted prior to these decisions; you made not attempt >to verify that I was receiving any of your alleged mailings; and now >you are taking the arrogant attitude that I must beg you to avoid >being stricken from the record. How Orwellian! Not at all. You are free to abuse me as vociferously as you like and edit your own update of the File. I'd think that rather silly, but I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you. What I *do* demand is that, if you want to be a part of the effort, you express your willingness to criticize with contributions to the effort and specific change proposals, rather than by ad-hominem attacks on me, flamage from the sidelines, and statements that observers other than myself have condemned as an apparent attempt to hijack editorial control for yourself. >I am willing to conceed that you have done a fair amount of good work. Thank you. >But you do *not* have the right to take the jargon file away from any >of the original authors or from the community which gave it birth. Nor am I attempting to do so. All of the First Edition authors except you have been consenting partners in the effort, and representatives of the ITS-purist crowd are climbing on board now. At this point, *you* are the only person I know of who is still willing to complain in public that the File has been hijacked -- and we can fix that if you're willing to work with me rather than against me. >It should be possible to come up with something that everyone is happy >with, but NOT until you give up the idea that you are The Boss. >Before publication, your version of the jargon file must be returned >by you to the rest of us for editing and amendment. Of what `rest of us' are you speaking? If it's the First Edition authors, all but you are already involved through jargon-friends. If it's any group larger than that, it would be impractical to do as you suggest. Observe that it's not egotism or reluctance to work hard that causes me to demur. I have, after all, accepted revisions from *the entire net*. But that process has only worked because of everyone's consent to use me as a clearing house and (in effect) send diffs in a format relatively easy for me to merge. Too many cooks would definitely spoil this broth. I would hand control to another sole editor rather than see the job botched by a committee. > You do not have >the final or sole say on the jargon file, much less the published >version. I want to be very clear on this. I have not sought *sole* say; quite the opposite, in fact. But I have done the work, and it's going to be my name on the book contract. That makes the text my responsibility, and I must therefore stand firm on my insistance that final editorial control rests with me. >Do you want to be like the theives who stole hacker-works in >the 70's such as Adventure and profited on it? If not, then you have >to start *listening*. I have been listening all along, as plenty of posters in this newsgroup have been publicly willing to affirm. Would you like a copy of the three megabytes or so of submissions and comment I've received, and of those of my responses that I still have on line? The charge of thievery is neither fair to the facts nor a credit to you. I have posted drafts with no restrictions on redistribution, and I have committed to keeping the updated Jargon File on-line after paper publication; in fact, the TeX for the ms is and will be generated from the *same* Texinfo master which (massaged a slightly different way) yields the on-line version. I am not stealing anything from anybody. In <13439@milton.u.washington.edu> Mark Crispin writes: >By the way, I have a marked-up copy of the jargon file. My notations >are probably too cryptic for anyone other than me. Things range from >new entries to philogical corrections (some linguistic references from >the original jargon file are inaccurate) to historical/factual >corrections to editing. I'd love to have these. The opinions of any First Edition author *do* carry extra weight with me. >I'd need at least a week, preferably a month, to get all that in. >It's thoroughly marked-up. Editing is hard work, isn't it? *I've* been at it for at least seven months. If you want in, pay your freight. Otherwise, kindly stop complaining. >And no, I am *not* going to try to write it up as a serious of e-mail >messages. I don't want to give you any more "lost e-mail" excuses as >you have for not having gotten in touch with me sooner. Fine. Post it here, then. I think all will consider it a reasonable use of bandwidth if that will end the dispute. >It's going to have to go through an editing pass with me, preferably >after you've finished, as well as editing passes with the other >original authors and preferably also with the original MIT and >Stanford hacking communities (assuming that the original author >editing passes don't take care of everything that has led to so much >offense). The editing pass with the First Edition authors is going on now. You are welcome to join the effort. I post drafts to alt.folklore.computers and comp.misc regularly, and invite corrections from anybody. I think that discharges my obligation to the MIT and Stanford communities. One thing I will *not* do is develop a finished product and then allow people who had no part in creating it and no investment in its success to voluminously second-guess all my decisions. This doesn't include you personally, Mark, but it does mean I'm not going to allow random old-timers to unilaterally `correct' me at the last second. Even if I thought that were ethically appropriate, I'm not willing to be hit with an unguessably huge requirement for more editing work and change reconciliation just as I'm winding up to a publisher's deadline! There's a contract being drafted for me now with a Feb 15th due date, and I am almost certainly going to sign it -- that's almost the latest we can freeze a snapshot of the file and guarantee relase by the 1991 holiday season. If you or anybody else wants input into the paper edition, I *must* insist (as a matter not of ego but of basic practicality) that you submit incremental changes starting *now*. I've done a tremendous amount of work already (more by far than I expected and more than anyone on the outside could easily guess) and I'm willing to do more; but I do not intend to devote the rest of my life to this one effort. Nor am I willing to finish the work on terms dictated by you or anybody else. I work hard not to have an obtrusive ego about my role; I've written before about trying to function as a transparent instrument of the hacker community, and I meant every word of that (as I think my actions have demonstrated). But I do have my self-respect, and I won't abandon a working accommodation endorsed by the consensus of the net to please even you. If you want your changes in (and I emphasize that I would urgently like to have your input), you'll have to negotiate with me about them on the same footing as the other First Edition authors have agreed to; on-line, with criticism unsparing but directed at issues rather than personalities, and with fundamental consent that the person doing the work and accepting the public responsibility gets the final decisions. Though I didn't intend it as a concession, you may take encouragement from the fact that I have decided to eliminate Appendix B (the obsolescent-entries section) and the big jargon-friends debate of the moment is over how much (if any) of the cruft I'd consigned to it should be dropped. Be assured that I will listen to what you have to say with attention and respect. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (12/29/90)
Reading the ongoing debate between Eric and Mark has led me to the conclusion that Eric has the true hacker nature, while Mark is merely burbling. Eric has bent over backwards to include old terms and new, with the only criterion being that they have relevance to the true hacker culture as it exists *today*. The jargon file is, and should be, a living document, and attempts to freeze it in the past do no good at all. If you don't like the way something reads, or think a term belongs in there, suggest a change - but don't demand it - unless you're prepared to take it over yourself, *and can do the job as well as Eric has*. Mark is trying to do exactly what he has accused Eric of with his unreasonable demands: he's trying to steal the _current_ file. I'd much rather he crawled back under the carcass of the PDP-10 he's been hiding under all these years. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "...flames are a specific art form of Usenet..." -- Gregory G. Woodbury