Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(June 1998)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk @ gsp . org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:20:25 -0400
To: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <v04011701b1ae57f9e151@[207.167.80.70]>; from Chuq Von Rospach on Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 10:40:41PM -0700
References: <199806171943.MAA06767@honor.greatcircle.com>; <199806171943.MAA06767@honor.greatcircle.com> <19980618005426.A9805@gsp.org> <v04011701b1ae57f9e151@[207.167.80.70]>

On Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 10:40:41PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> Rich, you're being stubborn.

Yes, I *am* being stubborn.

> The answer is in there: the RFC's are just as relevant to Eric as Cobol
> and SNA. He has other priorities. As do most of us. 

As do I.  But I find the time to at least keep an ear to the ground
so that I'm aware of them -- and I take the time to read, at least once,
the ones that might have an impact on what I'm doing.  I do so because
I think that's my responsibility as someone who connects
systems/software/networks to the 'net: part of my job is not only
satisfying somebody's requirements, but doing so in a way that cooperates
with the rest of the 'net community -- and doing requires that I
adhere with the standards that community sets for itself to the best
of my ability.

I don't always succeed; like everyone, I make mistakes.  But I think
there's a pretty wide gap between honest mistakes and purposeful defiance.

And I don't find Eric's attempt to equate RFCs with COBOL documentation
in the least bit persuasive.

> And if they're hiding that well, I don't particularly feel I
> need to pay attention to them.

Granted. But nobody, including Eric, has yet produced any evidence
that this done in an under-the-table manner.  As I said in another
message, if that were the case, then I'd have a problem with the
process, too; but until then...

> you're so fixed on how you think things should be you won't allow
> anyone to not match it. And many of us don't, and won't.

Actually, that's not quite true.  The way *I* "think things should be"
is different from BOTH de facto practice AND the RFC.  But I have't
expressed it here because, while it might make for an interesting
discussion, it really doesn't matter what I think about it.  I feel
it's my responsibility, as a cooperative member of the 'net, to go
along with the de facto convention - especially because NOT going along
causes a lot of problems for a lot of people.  My sense of obligation
to that goes up a notch when I see that convention written into an RFC.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Mailing lists for RATIONET proposal (aka "Mike Nolan's idea")
From: Norbert Bollow <nb@thinkcoach.com>
Next: Re: integrated delivery system
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Finding A Listowner
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Next: Re: Finding A Listowner
From: Todd Vierling <tv@pobox.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com