[9045] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: A Report of the Resource Allocation Committee, etc.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dennis Fazio)
Wed Dec 15 09:23:34 1993
From: dfazio@mr.net (Dennis Fazio)
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 08:23:05 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <199312150930.BAA22525@mail.netcom.com> from "Glenn S. Tenney" at Dec 15, 93 01:30:09 am
> You might want to take out your anger elsewhere. I made a one sentence
> comment and you chose to flame me. My comment was not combative nor a
> zinger. I made my comment as a followup to a posting that contained all
> the information needed. I am under no obligation to go out and interview
> the people mentioned in the posting, I was merely questioning what WAS
> said. I take great umbrage at your lengthy flame at me when it seems you
> are actually angry at what others have said. I stand by my one sentence
> question.
I'm sorry if my response came across as anger. It is difficult to convey
feeling in email. It was intended as a comment on the tendancy of many to
assume the worst in others. I do not assume that you have malicious intent,
necessarily, but the tone of your comment did add to the overall atmosphere
of suspicion without warrant.
You may not be under obligation to interview everybody and perform lengthy
research, but before offering comments on something that implies suspicious
behaviour, I think it would be better to verify that what was said was what was
really intended before making accusations, or at least word your resonse in
a way that avoids the implication of impropriety as the first assumption.
Your one-sentence question is fine and you may stand by it, but I think it
would have been more productive to ask it of the original poster first
rather than in a public forum.
>
> >To respond to this recent remark, Mr. Yundt, Mr. Hood, BARRNet or
> >NorthWestNet will not be the recipient of any of the Infrastructure Pool
> >funds that were recently allocated.
>
> But the posting said that they WERE the receipients. Go re-read the part
> of the posting I quoted. It said in explicit terms what two proposals were
> going to be funded and who submitted those two proposals. According to the
> original posting, the approved proposals were submitted (in part) by Mr.
> Yundt and Mr. Hood who also served on the committee that decided which
> proposals were to be funded.
No, the posting said that they were the submitters - not the recipients of
the funds. All proposals were submitted by committee members, but were not
authored by the committee members nor did they propose that disbursements
be made to the submitters. I agree that the wording in the announcement was
unfortunate, but you were reading the distillation of a process that took
many hours over several meetings. I think it would be preferable to assume
that people generally strive to avoid intentional impropriety and conflicts
of interest, and if something appears, on the surface, to condradict that,
then some brief verification is warranted before making comment in a public
forum.
We are all guilty at one time or another of jumping to conclusions and
assuming the worst in others in times of heated debate over controversial
issues. I am just trying to urge us all to remember that tendency in1
ourselves when posting.
>
> If I submitted any proposal for funding, I surely would not think it
> appropriate to remain on the committee that would decide if my proposal was
> selected. Would you?
I agree, if I were the one to receive the money. That is not the case here.
--
Dennis Fazio, Minnesota Regional Network --|||-- Gabnet: (612) 342-2570
