>The distinction here is interesting - I recently heard someone say that
>pioneers and settlers have a bit of a different perspective.
I don't think so. I didn't write the code (although I improved on pieces
here or there), nor did I think it up, or set up the initial links or do any
of the things the founders did. I came into a situation that was pretty much
working and tried to make it better, so my contributions were at best
evolutionary, not revolutionary, and I think the folks who were
revolutionary deserve undiluted credit.
Consider me a pediatrician rather than an obstetrician, perhaps.
>And I've found I've been getting a lot of flack from some of the
>people on the net who have different mechanisms of trying to discourage
>a new direction or effort.
Inertia -- the status quo -- is a difficult beast. Change is stress, and
most people look for a minimum stress environment. The status quo might not
be perfect, but who's to say that the change will be better? All you can
guarantee is that it'll be different. The rest is guesswork and intuition.
>But are there lessons that you can share without going into the details?
>Would that be helpful as a way of sorting it all out without it being
>to personal?
Let's see. That I needed to get a life, for one. That the net has to be kept
in a larger perspective and not taken too seriously, that not only don't you
have to win every argument, that many of them aren't worth having in the
first place (especially in a place like usenet that exists primarily as an
argument), that sometimes silence is the most powerful weapon, and that one
of the most potent weapons in the fight for integrity and respect is being
willing to admit mistakes.
The latter is the one thing, when I talk to folks about issues on the net,
that comes up most often. People are willing to listen to my ideas and point
of view because they're realized over time that if I decide I'm wrong, I'll
admit it and not try to push something through just because it's mine.
Sometimes it requires swallowing a bit of ego, but it gets easier in
practice, and what's really important is what's best for the situation, not
what has my name on it.
>But reading some of the history of the ARPANET leaves one with the
>impression that flaming has had a good effect, as well as a negative
>one. (Up to that point I just thought flaming was harmful.)
>Are there examples of where flaming has been helpful in the development
>of usenet too? ?
I guess it depends on your definition of flaming. I think the definition has
shifted over the years. The vast majority of flaming today is pretty
mindless, little more than imbecilic, profane abuse. Yo' Mama Weah Aymy
Boots! stuff.
In the Good Old Days (you KNEW I was gonna sneak that in somewhere, no?)
that stuff existed but was mostly frowned upon. Sometimes people would get
upset and it'd get heated, but a good flame was like a bad pun -- something
you'd sit and look at and realize that nothing you could do could match it.
The other aspect was that I don't think it was so much flaming as it was
inspired arguing. Almost debate. One of the things that attracted me to
usenet was the ability to sit down and argue with people (I'd like to have
an argument, please. I'm sorry, but this is abuse!). Not so much to prove a
point but because I enjoy having to take a position and defend it (what can
I say, I debated in high school and college, too. Agreeing with the position
is secondary to arguing it, but the rhetorical skills have been a godsend
here on usenet. I can run rings around most of the net, logically. But what
about the penguin? Intercourse the penguin!).
That's not possible now. The net is full of ill-informed experts who think
that "what I want" is the only fact needed to prove a point, or worse, who
either have the wrong facts or make them up as needed, and when people don't
roll over and piddle, they get abusive. It's pretty much guaranteed by the
third set of responses on ANY topic that whatever thread was started has
either been smashed with a fireaxe or has turned into tangent because of
topic drift. (Ever notice the prevalence of topics that start out with
something like "The Russians have just dropped a nuclear bomb on Ceylon!"
followed by 43 followups pointing out that it's been Sri Lanka for years,
you idiot, and one following reminding us that it's not the Russians, but
the Soviets?)
it's not only almost impossible to hold an argument on the net, it's almost
impossible to hold a conversation. It's a function of the noise level, and
it's simply because of the population. too many people all trying to talk at
once, and what you get is babble.
>opposed to each other, but in the battle things were clarified that
>served to make it possible to go forward.
That does happen. The Great Renaming is a classic example. Emotions were
heated, but ultimately (with the exception of talk) I think what came out
worked quite well, and while a good chunk of what was originally proposed
actually came through, there were changes that made it better. No one
person has all the right ideas, and the group mind -- when properly
channelled and focussed -- can put together better solutions than any
individual or small group. The problem is keeping them focussed.
I've also come to conclude that any solution that can't survive an open
discussion is (a) not the correct solution, or (b) you don't have the data
in place to prove it. In either case, even if you CAN implement it by fiat,
it's probably not a good thing to do. You won't get the world to agree to
anything completely, but you can build consensus agreements -- and if you
can't, then it says something about what you're trying to do.
I call it benevolent dictatorship, or more closely, the ability (and
willingness) to convince people it was their idea in the first place. Or at
least giving them a place in the process so they don't feel left out.
>Breaking new ground, where no path before has been forged, means that
>there are no models to build on and thus it is by its very nature a
>battle against the old in order to go ahead instead of backwards.
But there are! The key is finding them. One problem with USENET in the
ruling hierarchy is that there's been a strong focus on technological
solutions to technological problems, when the vast majority (and toughest)
issues usenet has to deal with are sociological, psychological and issues of
group dynamics. We can always build a better compression algoritm, and since
that only involves computers, is relatively easy. But how do you handle the
problems of recalcitrant personalities? We don't have any answer to that one
that didn't exist ten years ago, and they didn't work well then.
This page last updated on: Jul 1 09:16