Code? (fwd)

Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:33:20 -0500 (EST)

	Tril suggested that I forward this to the list.  I hope you
consider my lack of expertise in the field and the absence of my
involvement in the TUNES of today, as you read this.  It is merely my
opinion about the project.

> May I post your message to the list?  I'd like to see what 
> comments other people have in response to what you said.  Even 
> better, can you resend your message to the list yourself?  That 
> way it will say it came from you.   

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 04:36:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt <>
To: Tril <>
Subject: Re: Code?

	Hi.  I've kept a pretty low profile.  I was on the Tunes list,
for a while, about 3 years ago and re-subbed several months ago.
Unfortunately, I wasn't quite able to keep up with that sudden burst of
activity that started and then dwindled, recently, and I haven't a lot of
experience with or knowledge about some of the concepts you discuss.  I
do feel I've learned a lot about software projects, since the first time I
was on the list, however.

	I don't understand what you're trying to do.  I know you have the
basic goal of creating a better computing environment, but it seems like
there's no clear vision.  Every successful, large software project I'm
aware of has one or two visionaries/architects who sit down and design the
system or at least some sort of rough outline.  I don't believe in design
by committee.  (Maybe new software technologies can make it work, though.)

	In my opinion, if you want to get things moving in some direction,
then you need to address how to get from where we are now to actually
working on a "real" TUNES.  Until then, maybe TUNES shouldn't pretend to
be a project when it's not.  This could be made clear on the TUNES pages
so that the project-nature is down-played and the research, knowledge-base 
and discussion aspects are emphasized.  Presently, I have my suspicions
about the frustration-factor for those who want to contribute.  I also
believe that, if it appears as though the TUNES group/project (whatever it
is, right now) is spinning its wheels, it will fail to attract new minds
and contributions.

	Until then, can a set of goals be clearly established?  Can even a
clear set of criteria be established for determining the goals?  
Regardless of what stage things are at, some questions must exist.  Once
these questions can be phrased, then research can commence on trying to
answer them, even if those questions are really trying to determine which
are the important questions to ask.

	I don't believe that overnight, TUNES can burst forth into
existence as a new medium of computing that's many generations ahead of
everything else.  Things tend to require several iterations of
evolutionary refinement.  TUNES is so ambitious that, once real goals are
established and work begins, several prototypes may need to be written
before the right balance in achieved.

	Basically, I feel that the TUNES project needs to get realistic
and the attitude of the contributors should be pragmatic.  I am in favor
of building/organizing a knowledge-base, since that allows people to be on
the same page and establishes some common ground for dialog, in addition
to its other advantages.

	I think all your enthusiasm is very encouraging.  If effectively
focused, it could be the stuff of revolution.

	I also admire Fare's persistance and wisdom.