Re: Voting (again)
I'm not sure where these history questions come from. The initial
sequence for the Arpanet is documented pretty thoroughly. The first
four nodes were UCLA(1), SRI(2), UCSB(3) and Utah(4). They were
installed approximately one month apart starting Sept 1, 1969. (The
exact installation dates may have varied slightly.)
Doug Engelbart ran the lab at SRI. Vint, Jon and I were all at UCLA
working in Len Kleinrock's lab. Larry Roberts was the director of the
Information Processing Techniques Office at ARPA. He was the sponsor of
the network, which means he paid for it and oversaw the contracts. BBN
built the IMPs, which was their name for what we would now call routers.
Over the next few years we all moved around. I went to ARPA. Vint went
to Stanford University. Jon went to work at MITRE in the Washington DC
area and then moved back to California to work for Engelbart at SRI. I
finished at ARPA -- by then renamed to DARPA -- and went to USC-ISI.
Jon left SRI and came down to USC-ISI in a different group and stayed
there until he passed away. Vint left Stanford and came to DARPA. Etc.
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
I suggest you consult http://bootstrap.org <http://bootstrap.org/>. I
think you will have a clearer picture of an underlaying culture of the
IETF system. There is some work to do to fully evaluate that thinking,
its cons and pros. Where it leads. What it implies.This is quite
interesting. May be as much as the Plato's paradigm.
Doug Engelbart located node nr2 (first was Larry Roberts'). He created
the NIC and if I am correct hired Steve Crocker and Jon Postel (if
people here can confirm? I try to rebuild the links and dates. The
history of the thinking/doctrine is very interesting to understand the
design). You will see that in his story, he came to McDonnell Douglas
where "seing no commercial value in his work, the company's executive
fired him and his staff, and closed down his laboratory". I may be one
of the first there who believed in the potentialities of his technology
at McDD but found his concepts did not commercialy fly because of the
underlaying faith in "collective IQ augmentation" and activity A, B, C
you may also think present in IETF. IMHO the world is not built that way.
Obviously time has flown. Many other contradictory influences were
added. But for having related, studied and finaly
technically/commercialy opposed in part these ideas, I am probably more
sensible to them. I feel they found the IETF, IAB, IESG, ICANN, etc.
At 01:16 18/04/2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Why do you think a decent-sized, randomly-selected subset of
> the IETF (i.e. the NomComm) are taking actions that are
> substantially more conservative (in terms of keeping people)
> than the IETF as a whole would do?
Because they only get to do it once and have no expectation of
> The *whole point* of the
> NomComm is for it to have roughly the same views as the IETF
> as a whole, except in a smaller body. So what makes you think
> that were the IETF as a whole making the decisions, they'd be
> any different?
The people whoe wrote the constitution certainly thought that there
would be a difference. Otherwise they would have done it the obvious
> > Why do engineers believe that they are experts in innovating
> > organizations? Is the result an improvement over traditional
> > arrangements that have been incrementally improved over
> I find this comment particularly hilarious, in view of the
> fact that an important part of the inspiration for the whole
> NomComm process was the Athenian Constitution of 508 BC; in
> particular, the mechanism for the selection of the Boule (the
> Council of Five Hundred), which was the chief executive organ
> of the state.
As I said, ignoring the 2,500 years of experience since that date.
Moreover the Athenian constitution was not exactly a success, they
murdered Socrates, got whacked in the Peleponesian war and finaly got
whacked by the Romans.
Given the fragmentary nature of classical accounts I find it astonishing
that you would think that you could understand the dynamics of the
organizations at all, let alone whether they were satisfactory. Most of
the accounts were written by the people whose interests were served by
those arrangements. The one dissenting voice, Plato provides a critique
so devastating that the same experiment is not tried again for two
> As you will perhaps recall, this constitution was in itself
> the result of several hundred years of tinkering with
> democratic systems for use in small societies with direct
> democracies (i.e. a very different environment from today's
> mass representative democracies, with their millions of members).
The only large scale organization I know of that has anything similar is
the Socialist Workers Party - and for similar reasons, it allows the
politburo to keep talking about decentralization and grass roots power
while keeping power firmly concentrated in the hands of an elite.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list