[9709] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Some Thoughts on The National Science Board
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Deutsch)
Mon Jan 17 15:13:14 1994
From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 14:55:13 -0500
In-Reply-To: Gordon Cook's message as of Jan 17, 18:49
To: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Gordon,
[ You wrote: ]
> As I quit clearly showed yesterday with the science board I am
> questioning the efficacy of a PROCESS. Sean McLinden with his remarks about
> certain weaknesses of the PEER review process did an excellent job of
> shedding some light on some weaknesses of the PROCESS being used.
>
> Why don't you all offer a defense of the PROCESS, rather than shifting
> the debate to the areas of PERSONAL attacks? Or if you insist on doing
> the latter, why not come up with some *specific* example of what bothers
> you?
I'm not sure if you'd seen my posting when you wrote this,
and if so whether you include it among those you feel are
attacking you personally but please rest assured I was _not_
aiming my remarks specifically at you.
I believe I _was_ offering some of the defense of the
process you call for by pointing out that however flawed
individual decisions at the NSF may appear to be for those
studying their internal structures, decision-making
abilities and so on, the NSF group responsible for the
Internet has produced excellent results to date. This
should count for something when evaluating their efforts
and the process itself.
Now, that is not to say that there's no room for
improvement, nor do I deny that there might be room for
abuse in the current structure. Still, the fact is that to
date I've seen no evidence of heinous behavior, no
evidence of misuse of power for personal ends and no
evidence of mistakes that couldn't be explained by
anything more than simple errors of judgement. Considered
in context, mistakes such as the confusion surrounding the
birth of ANS seem understandable considering the work load
these people carry.
I'm _happy_ that the efforts of Steve Wolff and his
co-workers receive close public scrutiny, that's only
appropriate when people are spending public funds. On the
other hand I don't subcribe to the view that every mistake
that public servents make must be the result of
malfeasance or incompetence. Sometimes it's overwork, lack
of full information or simple errors in judgement.
I'm prepared to judge the NSF gang on the basis of overall
results, with each individual error in judgement
considered in context. In doing so, I'm not unhappy with
what I see and I thus rejected your call for immediate
changes to the system. The current process has produced the
current Internet and I think that's pretty cool. There are
probably processes that would have done a better job. I am
sure that there are processes that would have done a worse
one...
- peterd
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the sea searching for a suitable rock
or hunk of coral to cling to and make its home for life. For this task, it
has a rudimentary nervous system. When it finds its spot and takes root, it
doesn't need its brain anymore so it eats it! (It's rather like getting
tenure.)" - From CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLAINED, by Daniel Dennett, p. 177
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
