New Project Coordinator Introduction

Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:28:05 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2 wrote:

> i'd rather that they asked or informed me of this, even though i'm a
> relative newcomer.  i feel that i have a big investment now in how this
> project turns out.  this also is not the first time that i have been snubbed
> in this group.  you'd better listen to all of us, not merely the
> establishment, if you don't expect me to take this as an insult.

I realize I haven't been too friendly at people, which is exactly why I
asked Beholder to help out.  Please give him a chance.  I am sorry for how
terrible you feel about the project, I didn't realize it was as bad as

> > I'm only here to help, and I know some of you have concerns for
> > the project, so... lets hear em.
> > 
> yes.
> the web pages certainly need some major overhauling.  most of the content is
> political and academic, and although that is the main impetus behind Tunes,
> it's certainly not appropriate for the average novice as an introduction.
> the Tunes name itself, i believe, is entirely uninspiring and almost
> derogatory. 

Derogatory of whom?  

I agree the page is not for novices, and I'd like
it to be better.  There is simply so much information I'm not sure where
to start.  

> i obviously don't have the pull myself to change the minds of
> the establishment myself, though.  

There is no establishment, and I am offended at being thrown into that
category.  Fare and I *are* flexible and open to ideas, although somehow
that isn't very clear to most people.

> i see this project as needing an entirely
> different outlook by the time that four months passes from now, if my
> development progresses as i plan.  we need to inspire people, not mire them
> in criticism for current systems.  the entire ontological perspective of
> these people is completely bogus for making "converts".

A project with no code should not go out of its way to gain converts.  If
we did, people would laugh at us for having nothing to offer.  It's also
difficult to think about asking people to join, for this reason: There are
so many areas applicable to TUNES, that we could basically post on every
USEnet group with a customized message explaining how TUNES relates to
them.  But TUNES doesn't relate to everyone, yet.  Not until it has some
working system to show.  Therefore, I think we should wait until each
stage (in softare) is complete before announcing *real* publically (on
USENET) that TUNES is really great and they should check it out.  No
matter how clearly we think we grasp the system, it's still just theory
until we have a working system!  I admit my weakness is tending to stay in
theory indefinitely (perfectionism).  However, there are other people to
keep me in line.  That's what a group is all about.  For instance if
anyone wants to code, they can do so, and will be appreciated.  Myself, I
don't understand the concepts clear enough to begin any code, but that's
just my personal opinion.  Why isnt' there a unified effort to DECIDE
whether to continue research or write code?  Because we should do both.

> this project is going to go public soon, if i have my way.  if i don't, then
> i will go public myself as a separate effort and leave this project's
> destructive philosophies behind.  these people have no idea of the
> implications inherent in this project, and they have much less an idea how
> to propagate them.

What do you mean by going public?  Don't you think the project's goals,
and organization should be clarified first (even to its own members)?  How
can we meet a greater number of people without being self aware first?
Most importantly, what audience do you wish to reach?  (A computing system
that is better for everybody?  Hey, that means EVERYBODY is our audience!)

Implications of the project?  I rather think I am aware.  Propagating them
how?  I think a working system is the best and only means of propagation
we need.  The alternative is just words, which are hollow.   (Hollow words
like telling everyone we meet TUNES is great, but not being able to back
up our claims.  This is not the same as well-thought-out and organized
documents explaining our ideas; those I encourage.)

But I resist hurriedness in developing ideas.  I really think you
underestimate the time and effort needed to develop concepts that are as
complex as those needed by the tunes system. 

Anyways, threats aren't going to affect me.  If you wish to create a
separate project, by all means do so.  There's no need to be antagonistic
about our differing outlooks of the timeline of the project.  I hope
either way this disagreement can be resolved peaceably.  Although I could
use some insight into what the disagreement is more exactly.  Maybe there
isn't one, and there is just some misunderstanding.

> i am unfortunately in no position yet to manage a project with more than a
> few people, due to my present location near Iraq onboard an aircraft carrier
> for the next several months.  when the time comes around, however, i intend
> to make good on my words (i.e. web site, associated commercial effort,
> advertising, spurring academic discussion, etc.).

Ahh, this (part in parenthesis) gives me some more perspective.  

* Web site - A-OK (I agree the web page needs work)

* Commercial effort-  Wha?  Tell me more.
Most especially I think most people are concerned about licensing
policies.  I believe companies should make money from selling service
(such as warranties, technical support, custom configurations,
documentation, training, and so on) but software packages and their source
code should be freely distributable.  A differing licensing philosophy
between members would be the quickest way to reaching a "fork" (split
projects).  Again, no reason to have antagonism over differing licensing
policies, I think it's fine to have different projects in that case.

* Advertising - I really despise companies who advertise vaporware.  But
advertising our forum of discussion is all right.

* Academic discussion - I like this idea.  Let's talk more about ways to
find researchers in areas related to TUNES and work together with them.
Again, there are so many areas that are related, that I don't know where
to start.

> if you would like more specific thoughts, then ask away per the subject.
> however, judging from how poorly the others have received my efforts, i
> don't expect you to make any effort to listen to me.

If I may be blunt (as you were in your message), your messages are really
hard to understand.  The language you use is more academic than I am used
to.  I'm sure poor reception does not reflect a grudge anyone holds
against you, but maybe their lack of vocabulary and experience in fields
of theory which you are discussing.  I'm sorry if I didn't bring this up
before!  I did warn you that not many people do reply to posts, and you
have said it was helpful to write your ideas, even if it did not make
sense to me.   I also apologize again for that long period when I didn't
reply to your messages, during a busy period in my school.

David Manifold <>
This message is placed in the public domain.